Basically the debate comes down to whether the trend on this chart will continue:
Other meaningful arguments against:
• GPT-5/6 disappoint due to diminishing data quality
• Answering questions → novel insights could be a huge gap
• Persisting perceptual limitations limit computer use (Moravec's paradox)
• Benchmarks mislead due to data contamination & difficulty capturing real-world tasks
• Economic crisis, Taiwan conflict, or regulatory crackdowns delay progress
• Unknown bottlenecks (planning fallacy)
My take: It's remarkably difficult to rule out AGI before 2030.
Not saying it's certain—just that it could happen with only an extension of current trends.
If you make $100-200k in a white collar job, studies suggest you're most exposed to AI automation
But what people miss: while AI reduces demand for some skills, others get MORE valuable
I spent weeks analysing existing research, job data, and how AI works to sum up which ones:
/2 These skills increase in value (for now) because they fall into 4 categories:
• Hard for AI (messy, long-horizon, data-poor, human-in-the-loop tasks)
• Needed for AI deployment
• Produce things we want much more of
• Difficult for others to learn
The best skills hit 2+ categories.
3/ Which skills have a more uncertain future?
Ten years ago our advice was "learn to code" and "do data science" — that worked out great.
Today that's less clear. Coding is what AI does best.
It's already a cliche, but "learn to deploy AI" seems to be the new "learn to code"
2/ Lots of people hype AI as 'transformative' but few internalise how crazy it could really be. There's three different types of possible acceleration, which are much more grounded in empirical research than a couple of years ago.
People are saying you shouldn't use ChatGPT due to statistics like:
* A ChatGPT search emits 10x a Google search
* It uses 200 olympic swimming pools of water per day
* Training AI emits as much as 200 plane flights from NY to SF
These are bad reasons to not use GPT...🧵
1/ First, we need to compare ChatGPT to other online activities.
It turns out its energy & water consumption is tiny compared to things like streaming video.
Rather than quit GPT, you should quit Netflix & Zoom.
2/ Second, our online activities use a relatively tiny amount of energy – the virtual world is far more energy efficient than the real one.
If you want to cut your individual emissions, focusing on flights, insulation, electric cars, buying fewer things etc. will achieve 100x more.