michael_nielsen

Thank you for sharing. And I'm very sorry for your loss.

Agreed, & flagged the submission. The actual article is of interest, but I really don't want to reward inflammatory titles.

I've been wondering at what point AI assistants are going to reduce that to a manageable level? It's unfortunately not obvious what the main bottlenecks are, though Chris and Shan might have a good sense.

I see virtually no politics. Maybe don't follow accounts which post about politics?

You have not understood the statement.

Just so you know: you've completely misunderstood the statement.

There's (at least) two meanings for AI: (1) Software systems based on extensions of the LLM paradigm; and (2) Software systems capable of all human cognitive tasks, and then some.

It's not yet clear what (1) has to do with (2). Maybe it turns out that LLMs or similar can do (2). And maybe not.

I can understand being skeptical about the economic value of (1). But the economic value of (2) seems obviously enormous, almost certainly far more than all value created by humanity to date.

There goes 50+% of my use.

"LLMs are no good for [use case X]" often means "I aren't very good at using LLMs for [use case X]".

With many powerful tools - violins, say, or carpentry tools - we know that it takes a long time and a lot of learning to achieve competent performance, much less virtuoso performance. Someone who spent ten hours learning the violin and concluded "Violins sound terrible" wouldn't have diagnosed a problem with violins, but with their own mastery. I certainly think current LLMs have some big intrinsic weaknesses, but also that what they are is quite subtle.

It was the records of $100 billion dollars in retirement assets that was deleted by Google. Not a small deal, and far more than many small banks.

I am, unfortunately, a customer of the retirement firm, UniSuper.