digitcatphd

Yes, for me when they do this I immediately dismiss the model, don't even bother testing it. If you need to lie with statistics your model isn't good enough.

First, I don’t think it’s widely accepted financial markets are in an AI bubble or there is actually any evidence to support this, most market cap growth is supported by real earnings per share. It is debatable how long that will continue and if it is sustainable, but that isn’t a bubble it’s a cycle. Even the most skeptical investors to bubbles like Buffet and Burry, have large stakes in Google and Microsoft, front line bets on AI.

Second, I agree with the distinction evals are not enough, and this is dangerously making people reckless, I think the conclusion is still quite incorrect.

There is essentially nothing magical about being human. Our primitive brains were trained on logic, reasoning and processes. An LLM is simply this on less efficient hardware, but, improving at a speed faster than human evolution.

I would argue we still have not even really gotten started.

What do we have in the decade ahead? Robotics in every household, models 10x+ faster and more intelligent than today.

Really no significant impact in life sciences, R&D, and 'offline' world / robotics today as of yet, which is where most of the value will live.

I never quite understood the notion trade workers will be exempt for a couple reasons:

1. Right now trades businesses are profitable because of supply and demand. They are profitable, because they are undersupplied.

2. We are assuming robotics stagnates.