"When the answers change, I change my mind [...] Base rates have clearly failed me. I’m not conceding the bet, because I still think there’s a 10-15% chance I win via luck... make no mistake, this software truly is the exception that proves the rule."
https://www.betonit.ai/p/gpt-retakes-my-midterm-and-gets-an
At this point, straightforward trend extrapolation suggests that AI continues to get better and better. Arguably, continued rapid AI progress is the "nothing ever happens" bet at this point. If AI progress stops, or slows dramatically, something will have happened.
I don’t find a petition from people I don’t know who don’t care about me more compelling than my own direct experience with these models.
(I did so previously and pasted the response here, but it got auto-flagged for AI content.)
I once found this a deeply uncomfortable thought. It's been repeated so vacuously and frequently that I'm inured to it. Now, I just regard it as the nonsense that it is. To date, AI labs have not created anything like an intelligence that is on track to be "vastly superior to humans". They have instead created financial black holes that do have their uses, but which arbitrarily fail on the simplest tasks for no apparent reason, and only seem to get meaningfully better on the tasks they are specifically optimized for.
It's appalling to me that in 2026, people hear "AGI" and "ASI" and think of SkyNet rather than investment fraud.
You have only an extremely weak basis for this claim and have essentially just made it up.
> judging by the number of posts on the front page
Posts reaching the front page is not a reliable way to measure what "most people here" believe.
> It's ironic that
It's not irony.
You might find the Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy page interesting:
"Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments."
https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html
So for example, if I said: "The arguments for constructing an AI pause button are bad because they are being made by AI company employees", this would be a fallacious argument.
If I said: "HN users have this weird mental block where they fail to take AI progress seriously", that's not necessarily a fallacious argument, unless it's for the purpose of undermining an argument the HN user made.