I've said this before which emphasizes how hard it can be to accept, and how cautious it would be with medical efforts, but when all recommended approaches have

I've said this before which emphasizes how hard it can be to accept, and how cautious it would be with medical efforts, but when all recommended approaches have been tried for all they're "worth" and further progress is needed, the real successful solution may very likely be something not recommended. Not easy to account for medically, and it can be a matter of life and death. OTOH with plain money you can account for it to the penny. If the most widely recognized solution to an historically costly problem, like AI, is to infuse more money until the cost can be overcome, most people would not be able to afford that, but if it works it works as long as somebody can afford it. However if an alternative solution were to appear, so extremely non-recommended that it doesn't call for more money to be infused, or maybe even not any money at all, for measurable progress to be made, a lot of people are going to get out their business calculators and see a difference in leverage that will make their jaw drop. A slide rule could probably tell you that a lot faster than AGI. While using slightly less energy. But it's not the use that's the biggest problem, it's the waste over & above the minimum that could get the job done, if people weren't in such a unidirectional hurry. Either running in the same direction toward a near-materializing goal beyond the horizon, or running away from a bunch of different places in the direction of the strongest "current". Lots of big bucks being vaporized without waiting for a crash to occur. If the "market" corrects there'll still be plenty of AI out there and once it stabilizes it can probably resume growth at a more organic rate. Whatever else goes with it, and how far, is anybody's guess. For what it's worth.