> Certainly, they wouldn't expect that an AI able to score 150 on an IQ test is unable to play a casual game of chess because it isn't coherent enough to play without making illegal moves.
To be fair, I am pretty sure Claude Code will download and run stockfish, if you task it to play chess with you. It's not like a human who read 100 books about chess, but never played, would be able to play well with their eyes closed, and someone whispering board position into their ear
There are a lot of problems with this analogy, but even if you were to take a photo of the board after every move and send it to the model, it would still be unable to play competently.
My project is a complicated mix of account abstraction, telegram mini apps and about five obscure cryptocurrency SDKs integrated throughout the app. Yes, Cursor frequently hallucinates but it’s pretty easy to steer it. @Docs solves it.
Another piece of magic sauce: waste the context. Spend the tokens as if you’re partying last time in your life. Throw anything remotely relevant at it.
I haven’t yet found piece of context that made it perform worse. Most of the time the opposite happens - it finds stuff that I haven’t noticed in the big chunks of data I threw at it (error logs, documentation, stack traces)
I remember when I was just learning programming I had a mental block around nested for-loops. I couldn’t trace more than 1000 operations in my head, so I thought that computer wouldn’t be able to as well. To my surprise a computer can easily handle a million operations in a split second.
With AI is a similar feeling, I feel constrained by the amount of my own “RAM”, but once I let go, it almost always surprises me.
> I'd also argue that the biggest threat from ASI is what I've heard Roman Yampolskiy label as "ikigai-doom"; that AI could become so much better than humans at all the things humans do, that even in the best case humanity is left with no purpose
I bet status games will stay. Robots may be sexual partners, CEOs and therapists, but they'd never take on status roles in our society – only utility roles.
Same as we do Olympics, even though machines are much better at throwing and lifting than us – we do it to win approval of others
Effectively what you've just said is: You can still do all these pursuits, as long as you're literally the best in the world. That's not really helpful; that's still ikigai-doom.
The point is: If your passion is animation, you can probably find work doing that today. It might suck, certainly more than in times past, and its hard, and that's an intrinsic part of passion. When AI can do that, maybe the best animators in the world will still find work at some bespoke studio making "the authentic hand-made stuff", like a farmers market, but AI may make everything else. And it may be, not just because AI could produce it "better" (it may or may not), but definitely because AI will produce it cheaper. Capitalism doesn't generally care about quality.
And the same goes for many careers: the ironic thing is that AI probably won't come for the plumbers and janitors very quickly, and there seems to be some kind of weird correlation between the jobs people find high passion in, and the jobs AI is likely to replace. In effect, we're evolving into a world where humans are relegated to manual labor, while AI handles everything else, poorly, but humans can't actually make a living doing that other stuff because AI does it so much cheaper and good enough.
But sure; there will still be millionaire status celebs.
I wonder if we can reliably expect React-in-Rust framework that compiles to wasm instead of js? Or maybe just a React library written in Rust, but you can still write the source code in javascript?
Or maybe at least Typescript-to-WASM compiler to skip JS output?
I mean probably, yeah, but why? You'd still need JS to involve the DOM with anything, and that's the performance expensive stuff, so might as well just do the whole thing in JS.
To be fair, I am pretty sure Claude Code will download and run stockfish, if you task it to play chess with you. It's not like a human who read 100 books about chess, but never played, would be able to play well with their eyes closed, and someone whispering board position into their ear