But LLMs are not the path to the final state of AI, either. And that's assuming only if — and this is a very big "if" — a true general artificial intelligence can even be created using traditional silicon computing methods in the first place. Blithely assuming that it can be is really rather asking past the sale.

Unfortunately, the ability to programmatically weaponize false-humanity is real, and really effective.

Which is yet another ethical question that has yet to be widely judged before being deployed everywhere. Just a bunch of greedy, short-sighted exceptionalists.

As someone who's used Claude and most other big LLMs as part of my job, they're all absolutely useless. They don't have the capacity for thought or care, all they are is a word generation algorithm similar to Cleverbot. So you can't rely on them for useful information, you can't rely on them for remembering info you told them, half the time it feels like talking to a brick wall (because you essentially are), and their only actual value is to CEOs as something they can blame layoffs on, even when it's bullshit.

Laughable to call an LLM a thinking machine. It's glorified auto-complete built on stolen data. I work in the industry and the fact that any of this can impress anyone is fairly depressing to me.

The people no longer review their broken code the catch is that if they do it would negate all the gains.

AI is far from perfect and makes all sorts of weird mistakes, but so do people.

I gotta pull you up on this one. Realistically, they're not in the same ballpark. The mistakes made by people are so minor and infrequent they can be trusted to perform brain surgery, and the kinds of mistakes made are things like 'we miscounted the sponges on 1 out of 1000 surgeries,' or 'I took too little tissue and didn't get all the red cancer out of the identically red tissue because I was trying to conserve quality of life,' while LLMs are doing the equivalent of hallucinating a spleen inside someone's head or ignoring the cancer to look for cankers. You can't even rightly call of a mistake because the LLM isn't 'trying to do something and failing.' It's just producing probabilities and we're hoping they're useful.

When it's really important to get something right, we have a person double check the work of the first person, which they can do, because they are grounded in reality. When you want to check the output of AI, you use a person for the same reason. AI has no grounding in reality, only words, which are famously not the same thing as reality if you have an intellectual age greater than seven.