Wealth isn't determined by the amount of money in existence, it's determined by the amount of goods and services in existence. If goods and service increase while the money supply stays constant, that means every dollar can buy more. In practice, that's called "deflation" and it's something that people who control the money supply try to avoid, by printing more money.

Yes I know, which is why I used that phrasing. As the production of real things made of atoms can't be ramped up arbitrarily quickly.

For example, every doubling of oil production after WW1 took more than a decade to accomplish. And oil men were pretty well known for risk taking boldness.

The physical impossibility of real resource inputs to human civilization doubling on an even faster timeline is so obvious that I skipped pointing it out, and got straight to the point.

That it's incredibly unlikely for even money to double quickly enough.

Big difference between "can do this" and "will do this." More than 99% of people are consumers, not creators. And the field only narrows the farther you go in a specialty.

I do agree that the comment you're replying to is asking for too much -- "verify" and "geometric" are very strong words. But I also agree with the implication that LLMs are making it a lot easier for a person with grit to get farther, which might cross that person's personal threshold (using "threshold" as used in TFA).

Hence why I said tens of millions and not billions. But in any case as long as the number is more then a few thousand, it's practically impossible.

I'm still surprised by most of my tech/design/startup friends who don't want or like using GPT-4 to get work done or even for small stuff like cooking and planning. We'll be ok.