AI + science debate: the sweet spot is what happens to science, not scientists
soumitrashukla9 · x · 2026-09-11
An economist notes AI is currently at a sweet spot for economics: excellent at data cleaning, coding, and proofs (90% of the work) but only somewhat useful for economic intuition — current models act as para-economist assistants yet regularly produce fallacious arguments.
Retweeting, abhishekn argues most AI + science discussions over-index on what happens to scientists rather than to science itself; the real sweet spot is AI supercharging insight and innovation regardless of labor-force implications. He believes more powerful AI will still mean more opportunity for human scientists, albeit with a painful transition — "I, for one, welcome our robot overlords!"
Related event: OpenAI Chief Economist Says AI Now Handles 90% of His Job(2 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Better languages emerged from struggle: AI shortcuts may cost the commons — jjvincent · 2026-09-11
- OpenRouter agents now out-consume humans as AI usage arrives in three waves — AccBalanced · 2026-09-11
- Novosad backs Hassabis' AI safety institution-building over kneecapping US labs — paulnovosad · 2026-09-11
- If AI teleports us to solutions, how do underlying fields develop? — jjvincent · 2026-09-11
- Economist argues safe AGI comes from engineers inside big labs, not regulation — paulnovosad · 2026-09-11
- Op-ed: the ">10% extinction" narrative is liability evasion — AI is just software, and the vendor is the defendant — gerardsans · 2026-09-11