Your Left Brain Doesn't Trade With Your Right

The exact person and exact points are incidental. It illustrates what to is a flaw in many 'economics' frames on AI. Expecting a model to do all the work, solve everything, come up with new innovations etc is probably not right. This was kinda the implicit assumption behind *some* interpretations of capabilities progress. The ‘single genius model’ overlooks the fact that inference costs and context windows are finite.(...) People overrate individual intelligence: most innovations are the product of social organisations (cooperation) and market dynamics (competition), not a single genius savant. (...) Most of the *value* and transformative changes we will get from AI will come from products, not models. The models are the cognitive raw power, the products are what makes them useful and adapted to what some user class actually needs.This seems to me missing something incredible important about what Artificial General Intelligence will actually be. [1] There is a certain type of economist [eg Tyler Cowen] that will proclaim AGI is near [or even already here!] and apply their standard economics tools to confidently proclaim AGI will not be dangerous, or it won't meaningfully impact growth rates, or it will adhere to human contracts and all this AI safety stuff is silly nonsense, even regulatory capture!AGI as a Tool; AGI as an Agent Let's start with: thinking of AGI as a Tool instead of as an Agent."Most of the *value* and transformative changes we will get from AI will come from products, not models. The models are the cognitive raw power, the products are what makes them useful and adapted to what some user class actually needs."The point of AGI is exactly its generality: learning how to make good products, or scaffolding around ' raw intelligence' is itself a task that can be learned. Indeed it is learned by humans every day. The Bitter Lesson, Ag