>
The physical constraint is money - which could be said anything.Money is fake and not a constraint, that's literally the point of capital investments you guys are overindexing on so badly.
> Could vehicle factories be more automated if we threw a gazillion dollars at it?
They already are automated as much as it makes sense. Some of the automation is silicon-and-steel based, some of it is protein-based. Car manufacturers aren't in the business of pushing robotics and nanotechnology, so they prefer to hire protein automatons instead of developing and building their own, so yeah, they "pay people", but think what exactly they are paying them for.
Then consider that this is very much the work the AI is gradually getting as good as, or better, than us.
> This is the nuance that poster doesn’t understand. Given how much money thrown at it - we’re not even close.
What you seem to be missing is that "investing in AI" isn't investing in a chatbot, it's investing in technology that will (and already partially is) sit upstream of every other industry, of everything humans do. Like electricity or the Internet itself.
(The other thing you seem to not understand, in contrast with some of the investors, is that RSI is not a linear walk, it's an exponential curve. X-risk notwithstanding, by the time it's obvious to everyone, it's too late to make money investing in it.)
> keep throwing more given they continually need to keep raising fresh money
Have you heard about R&D?
I'm starting to think that "investors first" thinking that's so common here, that makes people feel they're smart, is actually quite backwards, especially at this scale. Or maybe it's simply people starting with a conclusion and trying to fit reality to match it, no matter how clear of a nonsense that conclusion is?