At the end of the day, the fundamental dynamic here is human creativity. We are taking a tool, the LLM, and stretching it to its limit. That’s great, but that doesn’t mean we are close to AGI. It means we are AGI.
But "you" don't, that is precisely the point. The speed at which the gap between rich and poor grows keeps increasing, after all -- the rest is commentary --, and people who right now send people to die and murder in wars for oil, and what not not, will not suddenly start sharing when they fully captured all means of production for good. That's like hoping the person who keeps stealing your shit every chance he has, leaving you in sickness or death without a thought will give you a billion dollars once all the locks on your house have rusted off completely and you no longer have means to call the police.
I think this is what differentiates the speed at which AIs have gotten from ok -> good -> great -> better than humans at say chess, versus say driving a car, summarizing a paper, understanding human requests, recommending music, etc.
I think a lot of people are extrapolating the rate of progress & possible accuracy rates from chess bots to domains that do not compare.
Either we're going to use these tools to augment our abilities or basically just become wiped out, at least our jobs will be, and there is no plan to provide support for anyone. Maybe the tech will make the transition to a post employment world so swift we don't even feel any negative economic effects at all, but let's see.
(unless the robots of the future are like Bender)
Maybe this is the cliff , but it feels unlikely.