Ege Erdil

If you run the software of the human brain, you can then deploy that in the economy and earn, say, human wages on the order of 50 to 100K a year or whatever in the US.

And so then it pays itself back because it costs on the order of 30K per H100.

And so you get a doubling time of maybe on the order of a year, right?

Yeah.

And so this is like a very quantitatively specific prediction about, you know, and then there's the response, well, you have BOMA effects.

And then like, okay, well, what does this mean?

Like, does it double, does this predict it doubles every two years or every five years?

Like, you need just more assumptions in order to make this a coherent objection.

And so I think a thing that's a little bit, you know, confusing is just that there are these qualitative objections that I agree with.

Like bottlenecks are indeed important, which is part of the reason I'm more skeptical of this software singularity story.

But I think this is not sufficient for blocking explosive growth.

I think it's quite funny actually because the O-ring model is taking the product of many inputs and then the overall output is the product of very many things.

That's right.

But actually this is like pretty optimistic from the point of view of having

fewer bottlenecks.

But if one of those products is zero, but you have constant marginal product there, right?

You can just have unbounded scaling in the O-ring world.

So actually, I disagree with Tyler that he's not conservative enough that he should take his bottlenecks view more seriously than he actually is.

And yet, I disagree with him about like,

The conclusion, and I think that we're going to get explosive growth once we have AI that can flexibly substitute.