> I didn’t make any claims about the long-term prospects of AI Actually you did. Someone else said that “There is a lot of debate whether AI will surpass human

> I didn’t make any claims about the long-term prospects of AI Actually you did. Someone else said that “There is a lot of debate whether AI will surpass humans in all economically viable skills” and you said, “Actually very little debate.” The absence of a timeline means that either you are talking about a very long timeline or you enjoy being vague so that you can feel like your predictions turn out to be correct. Which is it? > Based on the current state of AI I don’t think it replaces much economically viable human activity How much is not much? 5% or 22%? > Over time our definition of “economically viable” will change, as it has for the last 100,000 years What our definition of “economically viable” 100,000 years ago? What is it today?