> the idea that people would not believe a fable transcript circa 2020 (as long as explained as 5 year future tech) is absurd.
I’m certain I would not have believed a Fable transcript, or an Opus 4.8 or a GPT 5.5 one, for that matter. Is it so hard to imagine ourselves back then?
Ilya Sutskever said in 2017, whilst building OpenAI:
> Within the next three years, robotics should be completely solved, AI should solve a long-standing unproven theorem, programming competitions should be won consistently by AIs, and there should be convincing chatbots.
There was a viral YouTube video from 2014 called Humans Need Not Apply [1], which made a very strong argument that mass unemployment was right around the corner.
I actually think people from the past would be surprised at how slow AI has progressed in the end. Although the domains where it's turned out to be most effective - code, images, videos, music, etc. - would probably surprise them.
Seriously. At that point it was a stuff of science fiction with the early models being on level of Markov chains. Today they are more helpful that the computer in Start Trek.
I remember an episode of TNG were Riker was instructing the computer to come up with an algorithm to search the surrounding space with certain sensor in a specific pattern, I don't remember the exact words but it was something like a sphere with growing radius with the enterprise at the center.
we now, basically, have that, except for the space ship.
I’m certain I would not have believed a Fable transcript, or an Opus 4.8 or a GPT 5.5 one, for that matter. Is it so hard to imagine ourselves back then?