At the end this repeats that AI has reversed huge reductions in CO2 emissions. I keep seeing this. Is this chart wrong?

https://ourworldindata.org/profile/co2/united-states

The second chart is the one I’m looking at. Where is the 15 year reversal? If zoom in I see a small uptick. Not a 15 year trend reversal.

There's something I find difficult when reading this piece. The thing is, I've been making a living as a programmer and I'm now in my seventh year, but programming wasn't actually my major. I majored in computational physics in university, jumped into programming on that basis, and taught myself programming. So does that mean I have no right to make up programming problems and ask questions? I mean, couldn't Bill Gates have studied biology hard and understood things outside his own field too?

Or is the theme of the piece that one ought to have epistemic humility?

But the thing is, this piece itself also makes claims about psychology, power theory, and human nature to some degree, which is ironic. But that can't be it. Because this piece has no epistemic humility in it.

Then, if we demand according to what this piece says, in the end it comes down to "no one can test AI outside the major they studied in university" — but honestly, isn't it just a matter of buying the textbooks and papers and testing AI with them?

It's a slightly difficult problem.

The overconfidence effect is well documented and a known thing in light aircraft private aviation. People with education and good paying professional careers (doctors, lawyers, dentists, etc) who have the disposable income to buy a $300,000 aircraft and maintain it can easily become overconfident in their abilities. Because they're good at one thing in their life that requires a lot of education and training, they think it automatically extends to every other domain of knowledge that they set themselves to.

The original v-tailed Beechcraft Bonanza used to be known as the "v-tailed doctor killer".

> Anything approaching my skill level is superhuman

Or someone has the impression that Ai can code as well as them (and find errors) but at 10x the speed or more. They then conclude that human ability and superhuman speed is superhuman in total.

These people are going to be so cruel and vindictive when they are finally forced to look up. Not looking forward to it :(

This article first makes a point that Gates isn’t expert enough in biology to assess AIs capability to answer complex questions on the topic as being a breakthrough.

Then immediately goes on to say that his comments about AI coding are arrogant despite being an expert in that field with more experience than nearly anyone.

Unsure how to interpret that.

he presents the idea of Bill Gates observing an OpenAI model a. doing "complex" biology problems, b. some coding problems, and then based on his assumption that Bill Gates knows rudimentary biology, and used to also write code, the fact that Bill Gates is impressed with the OpenAI model means Bill Gates thinks he has superhuman biology and coding skills. This simply does not follow.

This would be like if I went in my garage, spent several weeks with the 3d printer and CNC machine to build a robot that can "dance", then I made a video of me dancing about as well as your average dad at a wedding along with my dancing robot and I said "this thing can dance better than me!", therefore: "Ha, your robot sucks! You must think you're Baryshnikov if you call that dancing". I mean this is kind of sad.

Slightly more than a couple of years ago, just observing an LLM coherently doing work at the academic level of a sixth grader was brand new to all of us. Which was objectively impressive. It doesnt matter "so what? anyone can do 6th grade math"....this..is not..the point...

I find the authors point not very compelling.. Bill Gates was by all accounts an exceptional programmer at one point and then spent a long time evaluating software engineers. He seems like a natural person to gauge AI progress in coding?

Around when AI was getting much better at SQL I was writing SQL everyday at work and had been for years. I don’t think it would’ve been hubris for me to judge that it was getting really good and would shortly be super human at SQL. It would’ve been correct anyway.

Ah yes, the professor from Hoboken is here to teach us that tech bros are delusional, and it’s really professors from Hoboken who know what is actually going on.

Biases and heuristics have become somewhat mainstream “intellectualism”, but just like people using the words prolific and myriad incorrectly, is leveraged here to a false conclusion.

The anti-AI narrative continues, to the detriment of those who listen to its self-destructive guidance that equates excessive enthusiasm with delusion.

None of this matters. By the time truth out itself, the Kushner's, Gate's, Andreeson's, and Altman's of the world will have walked off with hundred of billions of our 401k money.

Being successful is a form of being rich as enriching my hobbies, lifestyle, work profile and processes. Income doesn't need to be money to be useful.

I am no fan of Bill Gates. He's pedophile adjacent, in my *opinion.

But I was there. He worked really, really fucking hard. As did most of the early crowd. If you're asking yourself how people back then worked so hard, just realize that there are drugs that can help you do that.

As usual with posts like these, this is someone trying to turn their emotions into logic.

> I picked on Bill Gates above to illustrate the overconfidence effect

After having read your blog i can assert you've demonstrated that effect on yourself. Bill has all capability and credentials proven so we know this guy is a high authority on software engineering topics, you have zero if i'm not mistaken.