piedrastraen

This is far from being why so many people don't believe in AI superintelligence.

What is needed is to push the public to look at straight lines in a log-(log-)chart. 

Any financial advisor worth their salt will tell you "past performance does not guarantee future performance". Inductive reasoning is famously not the most robust way of understanding the world. The fact that Moore's law held up does not mean, in any way, that all trends in the world of compute will hold up.

All they need to do is to understand benchmarks and to use AI, in its best form, for themselves every 6 months.

Benchmarks are extremely hackable. And AI's intelligence keeps being extremely jagged.

There is no actual proof or robust reasoning for ASI. It's just speculation. Which is fine, there are many things in the world we can't determine exactly. But let's not pretend it's a fact.

How would it create low-skilled workers? Read non-knowledge workers. It would need robots, which are not only expensive but are material –and we're already using more material resources than we should. Something material can't scale at the same speed as something digital. It is very unlikely that humanoid robots will be cheaper than cheap service labour (there's a reason why they haven't been automated yet, unlike factory work).

Also, being human can be a comparative advantage in itself. There's lots of machines that do coffee, yet there's still a pleasure in going to a coffee shop or having something handcrafted. As machine created products become more common and human created more expensive, people start fetishising human made products or services.