sindriava

You seem very comfortable making unfounded claims. I don't think this is very constructive or adds much to the discussion. While we can debate the stylistic changes of the previous commenter, you seem to be discounting the rate at which the writing style of various LLMs has backpropagated into many peoples' brains.

People also think that two companies doing business with each other is somehow a "circlular dependency".

ITT: Keyboard warriors with no background in economics deciding if multinational corporate deals are a bubble or not

> LLMs have already hit their limits

This is the most profoundly idiotic sentiment to ever come out of the AI discourse. Not only has it been sung for so long that it's been proven wrong mutliple times now, it also pulls the strawman of the century because NO ONE working in frontier AI labs is pushing the narrative that "we don't need anything to change to reach AGI". You can stick your head in the sand all you want, progress is happening and it's not slowing down as of yet. Your knowledge of AI being limited to talking to chatbots doesn't change a thing.

Take this attitude somewhere else, this isn't Reddit.

To set the record straight:

- "CoT reasoning- stolen from Chinese AI labs" I should really hope this point doesn't need correcting. Accusing anyone from stealing of stealing from "Chinese AI labs" is laughable at this point.

- "Codex is a ripoff of Claude Code" Claude Code wasn't the first CLI agent and you could just as easily "accuse" Anthropic of stealing the idea of chatting with an LLM from OpenAI.

- "Sora is a low quality clone of Google’s Veo3." Do you realize video models existed BEFORE you were born, which was apparently yesterday?

- "another Perplexity ripoff." Wait until you hear how Perplexity came to be.

We know for a fact that current LLMs are massively inefficient, this is not a new thing. But every optimization you make will allow you to run more inference with this hardware, there's not a reason for it to make it meaningless any more than more efficient cars didn't obsolete roads.

Current systems are already tremendously useful in the medical field. And I'm not talking about your doctor asking ChatGPT random shit, I'm saying radiology results processing, patient monitoring, monitoring of medication studies... The list goes on. Not to mention many of the research advances done using automated systems already, for example for weather forecasting.

Demis Hassabis seems to think this and not only does he not focus only on LLMs, he got a nobel prize for a non-LLM system ;)

While I understand you wrote "free time", this isn't Reddit. Keep the snarkiness to a minimum.

My experience quite often is that if I get in a bad state, the things that usually bring me joy just no longer do. In some cases they even produce more sadness.

I personally think the US benefited from recent events in a similar way body benefits from a fever. So yes, even though it might not feel like it at times.

I appreciate you're trying to give well meaning advice, but do you think what you wrote could be perceived as very condescending?

I think this question stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of how depression works for a lot of people. You're asking "why don't they replace negative signals with positive signals" when the problem often is that the positive signaling mechanism itself is broken. It's like trying to balance a bike that only goes left.

This is likely a byproduct of us being too comfortable now. Not in the "you've got nothing real to worry about!" boomer rethoric kind of way, but in the sense that our baseline for reward has shifted a bit higher. So trauma can still present a very strong negative RL signal, while positive RL signals of similar magnitude become rarer.

I agree with this to a large extent. All prediction comes with uncertainty and a good survival strategy is to align towards the upper bound on risk and lower bound on reward.