BELLEVUE, WA - NOVEMBER 28: Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella smiles during the question and answer ... [+] portion of the Microsoft Annual Shareholders Meeting at the Meydenbauer Center on November 28, 2018 in Bellevue, Washington. Microsoft recently surpassed Apple, Inc. to become the world's most valuable publicly traded company. (Photo by Stephen Brashear/Getty Images)Getty ImagesThrow in one unorthodox opinion to a general vat of consensus, and what you come up with is often a lot of churn.That seems to be sort of the case with the recent podcast interview of Microsofts Satya Nadella by Dwarkesh Patel, where are the two talked about the future of AI and where its going.Lets look at that interview through the lens of Nathaniel Whittemores AI Daily Brief, where the host breaks down some of the main points made by the Microsoft executive on whether we are at the point that we can anticipate artificial intelligence joining us at the table.The headline, for many of the articles that cover the interview, is that Nadella is telling us: dont believe the hype.(Nadellas) comments seem intended to implore insiders to stop spreading hype about a so-called artificial general intelligence that could replace humans in most tasks, writes Thomas Maxwell at Gizmodo. Nadella said essentially that it will not happen, and either way is an unnecessary distraction when the industry needs to get practical and just try and make money before investors get impatient.Some of these observers cite Nadellas comment that the real benchmark would be greater growth:Stop claiming some AGI milestone, Nadella said. That's just nonsensical benchmark hacking. The real benchmark is the world growing at 10%A usual growth rate, Whittemore points out, is around 2%, as he asks us not to conflict knowledge work with the knowledge worker.In making those comments and others, Whittemore argues that humans are in a bounded rationality scenario where a cognitive amplifier could change the game.Artificial Intelligence Comes in WavesAs Whittemore goes over some of the other comments Nadella made, and their possible interpretations, he looks at the possibility that theres a phase one in which human labor gets cut extensively. Companies can apply these savings, he points out, internally, or expand their operations. Which one they choose to do will make a difference. Citing lean manufacturing and just in time inventory, he suggests that human labor in the future will be different than it is now.He also mentions that the legal infrastructure will have a big effect on what AI does, and how it takes off.The problem will be in the courts, Whittemore said.Back to the FutureGetting back to Nadellas chair, theres also a point in the interview where the exec talks about what happened in the 1990s.(The current time) reminds me a little bit of my first few years in the tech industry, starting in the 90s, where there was real debate about whether it's going to be RISC or CISC there was the beginning of what was Windows NT. So everything, from the core silicon platform, to the operating system, to the app tier, that full stack approach - the entire thing is being litigated. And you could say that the cloud did a bunch of that. And obviously distributed computing and cloud did change client-server, the web changed (things) massively, but this does feel a little more full stack than even the past, that, at least, I've been involved in.He then tackles the issue of capital expenses or capex for business, claiming that data centers will inherently be overbuilt. Thats another point that the commentariat is using to characterize what hes saying as throwing water on the AI fire.Also, Nadella pointed out, this is not unlikely to be a winner-take-all market. He noted barriers for disruption that will likely put the brakes on a wider implementation of AI, at least in the beginning.A coronary point involves the cloud, which Nadella pointed out has done a lot of the groundwork for changing the full stack on AI systems.Humans in the LoopNow lets go back to Whittemores secondary analysis, and please excuse the whiplash. He talks quite a bit about what this would mean for human workers.Work will be transformed he argues - a new form of human labor will arise. But will it arise in time, and will it arise in a wide enough margin to employ people who have meantime lost their jobs?In a lot of the secondhand coverage of the interview, you can read between the lines and see that there is some concern about this.People are wondering if markets can grow boundlessly without human involvement.In that case, qui bono? Who benefits?The interview itself was extremely interesting, and I urge you to go and watch the whole thing. Keep an eye on what those close to the industry are saying, as we assess whether we have artificial general intelligence in our sights, or not.