@random_walker
Periodic reminder that the AI-as-Normal-Technology thesis acknowledges rapid progress in AI capabilities. Its main contribution is to show why the speed of impacts is not gated by the speed of capability progress. We are keenly interested in assessing how the core ideas stand up to the evidence. So far we think the thesis is overwhelmingly supported. Here's our latest deep dive: https://t.co/8ZofeCzGoq Of course, we are probably biased, so we'd love to see how others assess the evidence. Remember: simply gesturing at how weird it all feels doesn't count. (We, too, agree it all feels profoundly weird to live through! That's not the crux of disagreement.) We have an essay laying out our areas of common ground with the AI 2027 authors. Point #1 is that *so far* AI is behaving like a normal technology https://t.co/u4K1fzIROg It is totally reasonable to believe that there will be some discontinuity *in the future*, maybe due to recursive self improvement. But there is no discernible discontinuity of impact so far. And if you think rapid capability progress by itself shows that AI is not normal technology, I encourage you to (re)read past the title of the essay :) https://t.co/ry4JeuhGIU