I am not sure if you mean this to refute something in what I've written but to be clear I am not arguing for or against what the authors think. I'm trying to state why I think there is a disconnect between them and more optimistic groups that work on AI.

I think that commenter was disagreeing with this line:

> because omniscient-yet-dim-witted models terminate at "superhumanly assistive"

It might be that with dim wits + enough brute force (knowledge, parallelism, trial-and-error, specialisation, speed) models could still substitute for humans and transform the economy in short order.

And we have a good example of a dimwitted, brute-force process creating intelligent designs - evolution.

Also corporations, governments etc. - they're capable of things that none of the individuals could do alone.

Sorry, I can't edit it any more, but what I was trying to say is that if the authors are correct, that this distinction is philosophically meaningful, then that is the conclusion. If they are not correct, then all their papers on this subject are basically meaningless.