Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AI's are going to understand people better than people understand people. Maybe, but very little of the “data” that humans use to build their understanding of humans is recorded and available. If it were it’s not obvious it would be economical to train on. If it were economical it’s not obvious that current techniques would actually work that well and by definition no future techniques are known to work yet. I’m no…
You are describing the current state of AI as if it were a stable point. AI today is far ahead of two years ago. Every year for many years before that, deep learning models broke benchmark after benchmark before that breakout. There is no indication of any slow down. The complete reverse - we are seeing dramatic acceleration of an already fast moving field. Both research and resources are pouring into major improveme…
No I’m not, I’m just not assuming that the S curve doesn’t exist. There’s no guarantee that research results in X orders of magnitude of improvement that will result in AI being better at understanding humanity than humans in the 5 to 15 year timeframe. There’s no guarantee that compute will continue to consistently grow in volume and lower in price, and a few geopolitical reasons why it might become rarer and prohibitively expensive for some time. There’s no reason to assume capital will stay as available to further both AI techniques and compute resources should there be any sign that investments might not eventually pay off. There’s also no reason to assume the global regulatory environment will remain amenable to rapid AI development. Maybe the industry threads all these needles, but there’s good reason to predict it’ll prove doesn’t.