If a "science experiment" has the chance to displace most labor then whoever's successful at the experiment wins the economy, period. There's nothing weird or surprising about the logic of them obsessively chasing it. They all have to, it's a prisoner's dilemma.
Fusion power has the chance to displace most power generation, and whoever is successful at the experiment wins the energy economy, period. However given the long timelines, high cost of research, and the unanswered technical questions around materials that can withstand neutron flux, the total 2024 investment into fusion is only around $10B, versus AI's 250+B.
I think there are two reasons. First, with AI, you get see intermediate successes and, in theory, can derive profit from them. ChatGPT may not be profitable right now but in the longer run, users will be paying whatever they have to pay for it because they are addicted to using it. So it makes sense to try and get as many users as you can into your ecosystem as early as possible even if that means losses. With fusion, you won't see profitability for a very very long time.
The second reason is by how much it's going to be better in the end. Fusion has to compete with hydro, nuclear, solar and wind. It makes exactly the same energy, so the upside is already capped unlike with AI which brings something disruptive.
the nice thing is you dont need to be cost competitive with other energy sources if there is no energy. and also that every form of energy is already subsidized like crazy. so as long as fusion is demonstrated to be reliable and scalable, then it can be left to the politicians to figure out how to allocate resources.
but i agree with the article about some points. proliferation and tritium I wouldnt say is much of an issue.
People are unsophisticated and see how convincing LLM output looks on the surface. They think it's already intelligent, or that intelligence is just around the corner. Or that its ability to displace labor, if not intelligence, is imminent.
If consumption of slop turns out to be a novelty that goes away and enough time goes by without a leap to truly useful intelligence, the AI investment will go down.
The calculator didn't make people better at math, it led to a society of people who can't do math without a calculator. And as a result math doesn't get done in many casual situations where it would be helpful, but people don't go to the trouble of pulling out the calculator.
So it's made it easier for people to be taken advantage of at the grocery store etc.
Most people are equally bad at math with or without a calculator. The problem for the average person isn’t that they can’t add two numbers, it’s that they can’t tell which numbers they should be adding in the first place.
I'd argue it's a failure of education or general lack of intelligence. The existence of a tool to speed the process up doesn't preclude people understanding the process.
I don't think this relates as closely to AI as you seem to. I'm simply better at building things, and doing things, with AI than without. Not just faster, better. If that's not true for you, you're either using it wrong or maybe you already knew how to do everything already - if so, good for you!
Technology know-how spreads rapidly, so no need to be first. Look how fast Google caught up with Gemini when they chose to, or how fast X.ai developed Grok.
Maybe it's cheap insurance to invest in, say, LeCun just in case JEPA or the animal intelligence approach takes off, but if it does show significant signs of progress there'd also be opportunity to invest later, or in one of the dozen copycats that will emerge. In the end it'll be the giants like Google and Microsoft that will win.
