Comment by ambrozk

This entire piece is based on one massive, unsupported assertion, which is that LLM progress will cease. Or, as the author puts it, "we are at the tail end of the first wave of large language model-based AI... [it] ends somewhere in the next year or two with the kinds of limits people are running up against." I want to know only one thing, which is what gives him the confidence necessary to say that. If that one statement is untrue, the thesis of the piece completely fails, and I do not know how any one person alive today can be certain that that statement is true. Has Paul Kedrovsky or Eric Norlin spent $150M training a 2T parameter model that no one's heard about? Do they have access to classified OpenAI docs which state that GPT5 exists already, and it's no better than GPT4? Without this sort of information, "LLMs are not going to get smart enough for widespread practical use" is an unsubstantiated bet, and nothing more.