confidently so in the face of overwhelming evidence

That I'd really like to see. And I mean more than the marketing bullshit that AI companies are doing...

For the record I was one of the first jumping on the AI hype-train (as programmer, and computer-scientist with machine-learning background), following the development of GPT1-4, being excited about having to do less boilerplaty code etc. getting help about rough ideas etc. GPT4 was almost so far as being a help (similar with o1 etc. or Anthropics models). Though I seldom use AI currently (and I'm observing similar with other colleagues and people I know of) because it actually slows me down with my stuff or gives wrong ideas, having to argue, just to see it yet again saturating at a local-minimum (aka it doesn't get better, no matter what input I try). Just so that I have to do it myself... (which I should've done in the first place...).

Same is true for the image-generative side (i.e. first with GANs now with diffusion-based models).

I can get into more details about transformer/attention-based-models and its current plateau phase (i.e. more hardware doesn't actually make things significantly better, it gets exponentially more expensive to make things slightly better) if you really want...

I hope that we do a breakthrough of course, that a model actually really learns reasoning, but I fear that that will take time, and it might even mean that we need different type of hardware.