AI, three at a time · read · watch · listen
3 reads

Cancer trials, org charts and the definition of a person each have a constraint that more intelligence doesn't loosen. What's newly certain is where AI bites first: coordination layers, not labs or bodies.

Freddie deBoer (Substack) 2026-10-21-1

Four Direct, Reasonable, and Important AI Questions (Which the AI People Will Ignore)

deBoer holds AI maximalists to their own yardstick and finds daily life in 2026 barely distinguishable from 2021. His best argument is that cancer is limited by tumor recurrence, toxicity and patient dropout, and curing every cancer would add only about three years of life expectancy. That sets the ceiling for Schmidt's claim that disease could be cured in 15-20 years: where the constraint is physical, faster thinking buys little.

In Good Company with Nicolai Tangen 2026-10-21-2

Eric Schmidt: The Age of Agents, Superintelligence, and Why Europe Is Falling Behind

Schmidt says the gains are real but concentrated in software, cyber and math, where learning loops are fast, and biology lags on data. The effect he is most confident about is organizational: a friend's firm cut 20% of staff, the 'glue' planners, and an estimated 2,000 of 10,000 people at a large firm are unneeded. Read against deBoer's cancer example, displacement arrives first where the work is coordination, not where the problem is physical.

Arnaud Bertrand (Substack) 2026-10-21-3

What's left for us after AI? China's thinkers have very different answers

Bertrand argues the Western fear of AI rests on a culturally specific premise that intelligence is what makes us human, as in Homo sapiens. Liu Yongmou inverts it: humanity's biggest problem is the machinization of humans, not the humanization of machines. If coordination work is the first to go, as in Schmidt's flattened firms, the open question is what remains of a person's worth once usefulness is no longer the measure.