Takes the optimistic case seriously enough to ask the harder question: if the technical problems are solved, what is left for people to do?
Why read it. The rare treatment of the upside that is not marketing.
The clearinghouse
The best navigable map of the argument
Not a catalogue of scary AI stories, and not a reading list for optimists. Both cases are given the same seriousness, because a person deciding what to think needs the strongest version of each.
The compressed-21st-century argument: that powerful AI could deliver 50 to 100 years of biological progress in five to ten.
Why read it. The most specific, most falsifiable version of the abundance case, written by someone who also puts double-digit odds on catastrophe.
A field study of 5,000 customer-support agents: productivity up about 14 percent, with gains concentrated among novices.
Why read it. Measured effects in a real workplace, not a benchmark.
The clearest existing case of AI producing a genuine scientific result rather than a demonstration.
Why read it. When someone asks for evidence that AI accelerates science, this is the strongest single answer.