I think further advancements may overcome these challenges, the way that reasoning models overcame previous challenges associated with reasoning. I don’t think the clearest shot toward AGI is literally just scaling up LLMs, but instead a combination of scale and modifications on current methods

Now, I do think the automated AI R&D feedback loop will *eventually* speed things up a ton, but I don’t think this has really kicked off yet

Meanwhile, various people predicted the trend was about to (or already did) become faster, e.g., due to paradigm shifts with reasoning models. I think those people's predictions were also off.

Viewing the graph on a linear scale demonstrate that claims of AI "hitting a wall" are clearly off. People *keep making* these claims, but while not every model release lives up to hype, no, AI has not hit a wall yet, and there's no indication it's about to, either

TBC I have no problem with a federal standard that both actually provides strong guardrails and preempts the states. In fact, I’d be for that. But Andreessen isn’t actually for federal rules; he just wants minimal rules

I still expect some AI legislative negotiation to occur on the margins, or where industry is fine with it. But the AI industry may now effectively have a veto on almost all AI legislation, & previous battles (eg the moratorium) may be refought against a much stronger industry.

Normally, this is all kept in check by politicians sometimes being willing to spend political capital on what they want or what their staff wants. But crypto realized they could simply turn the dial up to 11. And AI interests just started running the same playbook.

And congressional leadership, which effectively has a veto on all legislation, has similar incentives - they want to bring in lots of donor money for close races to help their party caucus (eg Senate Dems) win a majority. This creates more veto points on AI policy.

And even if a handful of politicians are willing to support AI policy & risk industry spending against them, having just a few champions for AI policy won’t allow for passing legislation as long as the clear majority in Congress will vote against it.

It doesn’t matter to the political calculus if the public disagrees w/ what donors want if the public isn’t changing their votes based on it. The political incentives push toward chasing donor money, as money allows for running ads which (somewhat) help with winning elections

Instead, they spend money on ads calculated to inflict maximum damage on their opponents (or to maximally boost their preferred candidates) based on issues that voters do care about, such as immigration, inflation, and healthcare