I understand that you probably think I'm only referencing the "hype cycle", and that's a fair interpretation.

LLMs are significantly different from earlier versions of "AI" (non-consistent naming) throughout the period. These are not expert systems. These are a new beast which effectively did not exist before 2017. The only reason why LLMs are included in the group is arbitrary naming.

I question the utility of folding them into the same hype cycle considering they have also already had more impact than any of the other cycles. This is new territory, and such arguments only take yet more attention away from the massive issue affecting the world at the moment. I would argue that you would be hard pressed to find another example of this amount of disruption.

That said, I do not at all disagree with this:

the stakes will kill the economy rather than AI research

So I'm happy to just agree on that. Enemy of my enemy is my friend kind of thing.

No hate at all. Hope you don't take it that way. I simply think that framing the discussion as "AI" (loosely defined as multiple technologies arbitrarily named AI) takes away from the clear and current issues around LLMs, especially if the argument is ultimately "just wait, we're in a cycle".

This affects my life in a deep way right now. I couldn't care less about a cycle, in any event. (And that's on me, 100%.)