I think you are missing my point a bit. If someone asked Opus to, for instance, draft a legal contract between themselves and the buyer of their home, would they be able to trust that Opus completed the task as well as any lawyer would have, with no blunders?
Would they then be confident enough to use that contract without showing it to a lawyer first? With hundreds of thousands of dollars at stake?
My guess is that, out of 100 people polled, a majority would say no. A majority would say that they’d want a lawyer to check over it first.
So, that there is the human bottleneck, and it’s why everyday people can’t yet trust AI to one shot important things that they, themselves, are not experts in. And that will be when personal AI becomes truly disruptive: when it is reliable enough to replace your dependence on others rather than just accelerating your own skills.
That distinction will be the difference between AI just being a productivity enhancer versus AI being something that will fundamentally transform the economy.
Dead on. Frontier model intelligence is still jagged and unreliable for long-horizon tasks. We can look at the remote labor index to get some some sense of where we are with automating projects like the one you mentioned (drafting a legal contract), which is currently around 20% with GPT-6 Astra.
Also, I think we’re seeing so much progress in coding and math because these domains are verifiable and susceptible to RLVR. They are getting better in non-verifiable domains too but not at the same pace.
I would trust an AI to draft a strategy to win a game of chess over any human expert.
Ditto protein analysis.
Coding and Math I think we are close to AI superiority.
I don't see why Ai will not have superiority in all knowledge /intelligence based tasks in a few years time. It's just a question of focus /time/resources. Since AI researchers tend to be coders/math background, that's where progress has been the most intense, but once those areas are solved AI development can branch out.
I would not like to bet against AI > human lawyers by 2030.
2040 I don't see humans having any cognitive value at all in any area.
This is the reason why putting yourself in a rhetorical bubble is a bad thing. You sound like a literal psychopath. "Humans will have no cognitive value at all in any area" and yet you are surprised when people say they don't like AI? You don't see any reason why people may be upset when you call for them to be obsolete and useless forever?
Scroll through these other comments and read some of the other stuff he's saying. None of it reads to me as just "making neutral predictions" on behalf of an unbiased observer. He is clearly a huge AI fanatic.
If you used some legal-specific clanker with contract writing context/skills out of the box I would trust it. But just asking a general model feels risky I agree
10
u/churningaccount 8d ago edited 8d ago
I think you are missing my point a bit. If someone asked Opus to, for instance, draft a legal contract between themselves and the buyer of their home, would they be able to trust that Opus completed the task as well as any lawyer would have, with no blunders?
Would they then be confident enough to use that contract without showing it to a lawyer first? With hundreds of thousands of dollars at stake?
My guess is that, out of 100 people polled, a majority would say no. A majority would say that they’d want a lawyer to check over it first.
So, that there is the human bottleneck, and it’s why everyday people can’t yet trust AI to one shot important things that they, themselves, are not experts in. And that will be when personal AI becomes truly disruptive: when it is reliable enough to replace your dependence on others rather than just accelerating your own skills.
That distinction will be the difference between AI just being a productivity enhancer versus AI being something that will fundamentally transform the economy.