Any specifics about generational improvements and hardware are moot without a reference point for total cost (hence why I brought up cost for a single human level intelligence)
To put it another way: the specifics about hardware don’t matter at all. All that matters is the dollars required to complete tasks. If Russia can have the best cyberwar unit in the world for a few million by ignoring an AI treaty, they will do so. If the cost is a few trillion, they will not violate the AI treaty because they don’t have a few trillion to spend on cyberwar and could still have a world class cyberwar unit for orders of magnitude cheaper. Then, the AI treaty is unnecessary: the economics already determine the outcome. The treaty only makes sense if the cost of human labor and the cost of AI labor are very coincidentally nearly the same.
> Your limited to 2 eyes attached to your body and a tiny area of focus they provide. Again, why would an AI have such tiny input limits?
A human organization is not limited in this manner. You can scale up human personnel at cost as well. You might expect that humans scale suboptimally (organizations suck at utilizing labor) but you can build this into your model while projecting total cost of human labor required.
I think a few readings of The Mythical Man Month would show that man-scaling falls flat very fast. This is why organizations look for the mythical 10x developer or the 'most skilled' person they can, because the individual can get far more done without the inter-communication limits that humans present.
To put it another way: the specifics about hardware don’t matter at all. All that matters is the dollars required to complete tasks. If Russia can have the best cyberwar unit in the world for a few million by ignoring an AI treaty, they will do so. If the cost is a few trillion, they will not violate the AI treaty because they don’t have a few trillion to spend on cyberwar and could still have a world class cyberwar unit for orders of magnitude cheaper. Then, the AI treaty is unnecessary: the economics already determine the outcome. The treaty only makes sense if the cost of human labor and the cost of AI labor are very coincidentally nearly the same.
> Your limited to 2 eyes attached to your body and a tiny area of focus they provide. Again, why would an AI have such tiny input limits?
A human organization is not limited in this manner. You can scale up human personnel at cost as well. You might expect that humans scale suboptimally (organizations suck at utilizing labor) but you can build this into your model while projecting total cost of human labor required.