> We haven't even begun to address the potentially super-human capabilities of future models.

Yes. That's a good thing. It is always a bad idea to invest a ton of effort into things that "potentially might" happen "in the future". These are imaginary problems, and are therefore undeserving of real effort.

We have real problems right now in the software engineering field. Let's focus on those problems instead.

AI didn't do that. You're deflecting blame from the responsible party.

And yet, historically, the atomic bomb has been controlled.

But this is a terrible analogy. Atomic bombs are weapons of strategic mass destruction. AI is just a computer program. It's way easier to control--just hold the operator responsible for the consequences of running it. Those consequences are not large, they're very tightly bounded as compared with the destruction a rogue actor with an atomic weapon can wreak.

With software products you can pretty reliably tell they're dogshit when the sales team targets the C suite. The security industry is riddled with that. Deals done over steak dinners and yacht charters don't translate to working, reliable software.

It works out pretty well for the RAM, GPU, and SSD manufacturers

just put a "new" or "better" in front of whichever name you want ;)

What's with all this make believe delusional bullshit? The LLM is not gonna wake up and become AI. Get real guys.

[edit] to be clear, I believe regulation is necessary and urgently important for the software engineering field. The damage being done by the unregulated psychological experiments run by social media and adtech companies is awful and should be curtailed. Engineers should be held personally, professionally, and legally liable for what they produce. But we don't need to invent imaginary bogeymen to do it.

What do you define as AI

Intelligence that is artificial, as opposed to the natural kind. Not something that can just string semantically relevant words together most of the time. A system that learns, adapts, improves. One that can generalize, and quickly make sense of situations outside the training set. LLMs alone will never do any of this.

>What's with all this make believe delusional bullshit? The LLM is not gonna wake up and become AI. Get real guys.

Look, it's one of those human stochastic parrots that just randomly repeats shit without understanding anything.

But it speaks in words, therefore it must be super duper extra smart!!11 /s

Sarcasm aside, I think this is an easy cognitive trap to fall into. It does sometimes feel like the LLM must have some world model because it converses somewhat coherently. Examples like this failure to understand chess, or to count the number of Rs in "strawberry", seem difficult to explain if the models are intelligent. But that doesn't stop people believing they are anyway. I think there must be something about the conversational interface that fools us easily. I wonder if people trained in interrogation techniques are also fooled?

I think your sarcasm is justified. I, too, am tired by the big claims that are only based on hype.

I go through a couple pairs of carhartts per year, so like $10/mo for pants basically. Seems like a pretty good deal. I'd probably go through at least twice as many pairs of jeans. It's a good product. Darn Tough socks are another good one.

> no license to kill, and not much in the way of secrecy or gadgetry

Insofar as you know.. there could be plenty of killer secrecy and gadgetry that was surreptitiously injected by your build/deployment/distribution systems ;)

it was ruby, so I did in fact know ;)

Edit: the customers, in some cases, did indeed run interpreters that were bad, but that's not my lookout! Buy me a fancy beverage and I'll tell you a story sometime