I've found value in the the three pills theory.

The AI pill. AI exists and it can already, today, do a lot of valuable things.

The AGI pill. AI will continue to improve and will do most digital tasks.

The ASI pill. AI will become sufficiently advanced, beyond human minds.

Now, some more color to each of those.

AI Pilled

Being AI pilled feels great. What do you mean there is a minion working for me that I can give away my most mundane tasks to. Life's amazing. And what do you mean it's getting cheaper and better with time. Soon, I'll be able to delegate everything to it!

If you go through the quote tweets of Demis Hassabis's post suggesting a framework for regulating frontier AI, there is a section of people who only really read the first half and expressed wondrous excitement at the promise of AI. They're all only AI-pilled. They imagine a future not too different than today except we all have intelligent workers working for us.

AGI Pilled

Being AGI-pilled is a little different. It means you believe that at some point in the future, AI will be able to do all labor. When you are AGI-pilled, there's no more hiding behind "Oh, but my profession won't be affected because of this special secret sauce that only humans can do." No. Being AGI-pilled is accepting that human labor will have no meaning. Anything that a human can do today, a robot will be able to do better, faster and quicker. Humans have no economic role to play once you are AGI-pilled. This does not preclude a transitional period where humans do have value but it speaks of the end-state.

ASI-Pilled

ASI-Pilled is when you accept that there's no reason that AI will only get as smart as humans or a little smarter and then that's it. Once we build ASI, that's it. Unless we get it right on the first try, there is not going to be a second try. Being ASI-Pilled is looking at the charts and feeling scared. This is the AI-2040 scenario where we hand over control to the ASI after 2040. If you believe that even after building ASI we are somehow going to be in control of it, you're not ASI-Pilled.

Some Examples from Zvi's blog to solidify the difference

Zvi: Autor is at most AI pilled. Gimbel may be AGI pilled. Korinek is ASI pilled.

WSJ: Let's put specific numbers on this. We're chatting at a moment when the U.S. jobless rate is 4.4%. How much do you think AI will send that rate higher or lower in 10 years?

AUTOR: If we handle this transition well, the unemployment rate won't rise substantially, though it's possible the share of people who choose to work will fall. They won't show up in unemployment, but they will show up in our further fractured politics.

GIMBEL: So much of this depends on how quickly technological disruption happens and how quickly new jobs emerge. In general, I think this conversation underrates macroeconomic factors that could drive up the unemployment rate.

KORINEK: Given the rapid pace of advances in AI, I feel a lot of uncertainty even about where the labor market will be in 12 or 24 months. In 10 years from now, our world may be transformed by artificial general intelligence. Employment or unemployment could be anywhere

Zvi: Tyler Cowen gives his 12-minute talk laying out his definitive standard argument for why jobs and job actions will change but everyone will still have jobs despite AI, blaming any future problems on failures to invest or allow labor mobility.... The argument is AI pilled, but not AGI pilled let alone ASI pilled. The only answer to ‘the AI can do it all’ is ‘things where we insist on human production or performance’ and I do not see a case for how this scales even under relatively friendly conditions.