Some users strongly endorse the permanent AI-driven acceleration of change while others dismiss the notion itself as a misguided quirk of thinking.
Based on 2 visible X reactions from 3 accounts; directional sample.
Ask a question below.
Published answers will appear here.
@jasoncrawford I am endlessly baffled by this quirk of thinking. The only way there will be a "period of change" is if all model advancement just completely stops now, and probably not even then.
7:14 PM · Jul 14, 2026@jasoncrawford 100%. At least until some limit that is so far off (definitely far in conceptual space, possibly in time) that we can't conceive what that world would be like.
7:23 PM · Jul 14, 2026Everyone building AI believes in a “critical period” or “transition” to AGI—like sailing a stormy sea, until you reach the opposite shore. My least-shared belief is: there is no opposite shore. There is only a permanently accelerated rate of change. There is a transition, yes, to a new mode of production. But once that transition is complete, things don't settle down again, just as the transition to the industrial age didn't settle down after we had steam engines and railroads. We should be working on how to better handle faster change, because it will be the new norm.
6:56 PM · Jul 14, 2026I think this is mostly true. Not exactly true - indefinite economic doubling is ruled out on physical grounds, so there's a sigmoid somewhere - but we should be preparing for a very long period where the world is in constant flux, I suspect a century or more.
Everyone building AI believes in a “critical period” or “transition” to AGI—like sailing a stormy sea, until you reach the opposite shore. My least-shared belief is: there is no opposite shore. There is only a permanently accelerated rate of change. There is a transition, yes, to a new mode of production. But once that transition is complete, things don't settle down again, just as the transition to the industrial age didn't settle down after we had steam engines and railroads. We should be working on how to better handle faster change, because it will be the new norm.
Quote from @demishassabis, which in its own right is worth reading:
http://x.com/i/article/2076946210397552640
@jachiam0 The world is already in constant flux. It's just going to get fluxier
7:29 PM · Jul 14, 2026I think this is mostly true. Not exactly true - indefinite economic doubling is ruled out on physical grounds, so there's a sigmoid somewhere - but we should be preparing for a very long period where the world is in constant flux, I suspect a century or more.
Everyone building AI believes in a “critical period” or “transition” to AGI—like sailing a stormy sea, until you reach the opposite shore. My least-shared belief is: there is no opposite shore. There is only a permanently accelerated rate of change. There is a transition, yes, to a new mode of production. But once that transition is complete, things don't settle down again, just as the transition to the industrial age didn't settle down after we had steam engines and railroads. We should be working on how to better handle faster change, because it will be the new norm.
Quote from @demishassabis, which in its own right is worth reading:
http://x.com/i/article/2076946210397552640
@jachiam0 The world is already in constant flux. It's just going to get fluxier
7:29 PM · Jul 14, 2026Some users strongly endorse the permanent AI-driven acceleration of change while others dismiss the notion itself as a misguided quirk of thinking.
Based on 2 visible X reactions from 3 accounts; directional sample.
Ask a question below.
Published answers will appear here.