Instead of one major shift, we will experience a continuous series of 'rolling disruptions.' As AI capabilities cross new thresholds, they will suddenly unlock radical use cases, leading to rapid market reactions, shifts in company strategy, and changes in the value of employee skills, creating a constant state of unpredictability.

Public and expert opinions on AI are split between two extremes: it will either save humanity or destroy it. There is a notable absence of a moderate, middle-ground perspective, which is a departure from how previous technological shifts like the internet were discussed.

Experts now agree that transformative AI will arrive much sooner than previously thought (e.g., 2035 is now a "bear" case), yet there's no convergence on what will actually happen. This persistent, radical disagreement among the most informed people is a strange and concerning feature of the current AI landscape.

Unlike previous tech shifts like cloud, AI is so disruptive that it creates a viable narrative for how incumbents could either massively win or be completely displaced. This complicates investment decisions across the software sector, as both optimistic and pessimistic outcomes are highly plausible.

As AI makes the future radically unpredictable, the traditional human calculus for decision-making will change. Instead of optimizing for probable outcomes based on risk, people will shift to minimizing potential regret, a fundamentally different psychological framework for navigating an uncertain world.

The vast disagreement on AI's future economic impact—from minor boosts to over 1000% annual growth—stems from conflicting reference points. Skeptics cite the last 150 years of steady 2% growth, while futurists point to the long-arc acceleration of human history since the agricultural revolution.

Derek Thompson argues that due to extreme uncertainty and a lack of real-world data, even high-level conversations about AI's economic effects are essentially storytelling, not rigorous analysis. Nobody, not even insiders, truly knows what will happen.

A major disconnect exists: many VCs believe AGI is near but expect moderate societal change, similar to the last 25 years. In contrast, AI safety futurists believe true AGI will cause a radical transformation comparable to the shift from the hunter-gatherer era to today, all within a few decades.

The consensus on AI's economic impact is fractured. Economist Daron Acemoglu forecasts a negligible 0.07% annual GDP increase over 10 years, treating AI as a rounding error. In stark contrast, other models predict double-digit growth driven by recursive self-improvement, highlighting profound disagreement among experts.