Where's the list of accomplishments?

For example:

https://www.futureaiplanet.com/2025/10/10-ai-healthcare-examples-2025.html


Also: AlphaFold 3:

https://blog.google/technology/ai/google-deepmind-isomorphic-alphafold-3-ai-model/

https://deepmind.google/science/alphafold/

The issue is that the economic growth fueled by AI is...

More or less yes to everything you said.

I mean there's all the amazing things AI is doing, science and medicine, etc., which is reason enough to want it to succeed, but it's the money that seems to be driving everything. Which is why the powers-that-be are not going to just let AI fail. I mean it still might, but not without a fight. And if it is a bubble, and if it does collapse, we'll have an ugly depression to show for it.

But I think the planners at the top have a long-term vision and know where we're headed. I'm an AI optimist. The world is going to sh*t, and we need something to hang our hat on. Too many people around the world live in poverty and much much worse. It's unacceptable. And the Status Quo has zero interest in changing anything. AI has the potential to force meaningful change through innovation.

Quote from: Bill Hiatt on October 29, 2025, 11:55:44 PM

Nothing has changed--except...

For now, the only percentages that matter are how much AI related investment is driving GDP - and the Stock Market.

From Yahoo News:

Quote

Harvard economist Jason Furman recently said that AI investments accounted for nearly 92% of U.S. GDP growth in the first half of 2025.

From Fortune:

Quote

Since the October 2022 bear market bottom and the launch of ChatGPT, according to Shalett?s calculations, the S&P 500 has soared 90%, but most of these gains have come from a small group of stocks. The so-called ?Magnificent Seven??including high-profile names like Nvidia and Microsoft?plus another 34 AI data-center ecosystem companies, are responsible for, as cited by Shalett and separately by JP Morgan Asset Management?s Michael Cembalest, about three-quarters of overall market returns, 80% of earnings growth, and a staggering 90% of capital spending growth in the index. Comparatively, the other 493 names in the S&P 500 are up just 25%?showing just how concentrated the rally has become.

That's too big to fail money.

The issue is that the economic growth fueled by AI is largely artificial.

Some investors say AI isn?t helping enough companies make money and therefore isn?t actually growing the economy.

Others say the massive investment deals recently announced among a small group of AI giants are effectively ?circular? because money and stock pass back and forth between parties in such transactions.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/markets/stock-market-ai-boom-dot-com-bubble-rcna237679
The statistics you're citing are thus an indication of an unhealthy economy, not a healthy one. We just had a quarter with some overall GDP growth, but GDP was largely stagnant earlier, and it will probably be again. In other words, trading in overvalued stocks is producing an artificially rosy picture that may not be well grounded in reality.

The economic news cycle is dominated by large-scale layoffs and store closures rather than employment increases and new openings that would indicate a truly healthy economy.

As for the stock market, the gains there are unrealized gains. If investors get nervous and start panic selling (as around April 2, for example), billions of dollars can vanish in minutes. What's on the table is really more like faerie gold that looks real but can be gone come sunrise.

More and more economists are equating our current situation to the .com bubble, in which a correction on overvalued stock led to a crash. Per the source cited above, the Buffett indicator (the ratio of stock valuation to GDP) was 140% when the .com bubble burst. In other words, the total value of stocks was greater than what the total US economy was worth. That's not where you want to be. Currently, the Buffett indicator is above 210%.

All the money on the table didn't keep the .com bubble from bursting, and it won't keep the Ai bubble from bursting.

Rising unemployment is never good politically. Nor are stock market crashes. Put them both together, and potentially, you have a depression. Politicians have a hard time weathering recessions. As a group, they don't weather depressions. If, as I think likely, an economic downturn can reasonably be attributed to AI, then every politician will be in a lifeboat marked "Down with AI." And the money on the table? It'll all be gone when the bubble bursts. Some AI companies will survive, but most of that money isn't going to reappear for quite a while. To the extent it does, other issues, like unemployment-reduced purchasing power, will keep economic growth down.

There was a huge amount of money (relative to the time period) on the stock market table right before the crash of 1929. That didn't prevent a crash any more than the money on the table during the .com bubble prevented a crash. And crashes lead to changes. Depressions lead to even bigger ones. Republicans had been the dominant party in the US since the end of the Civil War. Grover Cleveland won in shaky economic times. Woodrow Wilson won when the Republican party split. Otherwise, Republicans owned the White House, and for the most part, Congress. Democrats lost by sizeable landslides in 1920, 1924, and 1928. Then they won in a landslide in 1932 and a bigger one in 1936, ending up with huge majorities in both houses of Congress (and a much different economic philosophy than even the Democrats had had to begin with). Dems didn't always win the presidency after that, but they remained the majority party until the 1980s. (Eisenhower, despite his own landslides, had a Dem Congress for six out of eight years; Nixon and Ford had Dem Congress for all eight years. Even Reagan had a Dem house for all eight years and a senate for two.

What a difference a crash makes. What a difference an economic downturn makes, and the bigger the downturn, the bigger the change. It's hard to know what direction the change will be. Whichever party holds power at the time will be the big loser, but both are likely to throw AI under the bus--hard.   

Nothing has changed--except...

For now, the only percentages that matter are how much AI related investment is driving GDP - and the Stock Market.

From Yahoo News:

Harvard economist Jason Furman recently said that AI investments accounted for nearly 92% of U.S. GDP growth in the first half of 2025.

From Fortune:

Since the October 2022 bear market bottom and the launch of ChatGPT, according to Shalett's calculations, the S&P 500 has soared 90%, but most of these gains have come from a small group of stocks. The so-called "Magnificent Seven", including high-profile names like Nvidia and Microsoft, plus another 34 AI data-center ecosystem companies, are responsible for, as cited by Shalett and separately by JP Morgan Asset Management's Michael Cembalest, about three-quarters of overall market returns, 80% of earnings growth, and a staggering 90% of capital spending growth in the index. Comparatively, the other 493 names in the S&P 500 are up just 25%, showing just how concentrated the rally has become.

That's too big to fail money.

___

Just the other day I read quite an encouraging article (possibly on the BBC news website, possibly not!) about the possibility of robots taking on some tasks like cleaning - there already so-called robotic vacuum cleaners...

This quote's been floating around for a while:

I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes.

___

Prety soon the machines will just be talking to each other.

See Dead Internet Theory.

Just the other day I read quite an encouraging article (possibly on the BBC news website, possibly not!) about the possibility of robots taking on some tasks like cleaning - there already so-called robotic vacuum cleaners, of course - and even caring for older people. Though of course some older people might not take to this idea. The comments on the article were generally quite positive.

That might actually be a good thing.

I'm one of those who potentially will wind up alone in my 80's. No kids, no partner, and by then maybe no close family at all.

An I, Robot type bot looking after the mundane stuff for me might actually work.

Mind you, the 'companion' type one might prefer, had too many bad endings in The Outer Limits to be that comfortable with.

But a robot robot, that might work.

Marvin, but without the paranoia.