anthonyrstevens

Echopraxia could have been so great but missed for me. It felt rushed or under-implemented.

In all seriousness, I couldn't realiably tell you that this comment didn't come from (say) a Russian disinformation bot. When did HN become the Twilight Zone of content-free consipiracy spam?

And atoms

/s surely

>> nor should we assume OpenAI is working on anything other than what has some public traces

Using that reasoning, I am only thinking about whatever comes out of my mouth or gets typed on my keyboard, and nothing else. Ludicrous on its face.

Nice try at content-free debunking though Encyclopedia Brown

I wish I could, but there are so many people posting on here who explicitly signal their bad intentions that it's hard to maintain high-minded charity.

How do you get "self-hating" out of that? I think you're projecting your own attitudes about AI onto the parent comment. Saying "humans aren't special in terms of evaluation criteria <X>" is not self-hating, it's potentially a statement of fact.

I'm imagining that someone like you would have argued that animals weren't conscious, or couldn't communicate, back in the day, because humans were "special" that way.

>> proves human inferiority, that humans need to accept that they're not special, and that we should rush to submit to our new AI overlords

That's a lot of axes you're grinding simultaneously my friend

What's tiring is the constant snide dismissiveness of the advances in technology by people who don't even RTFA, but yet show up on every AI thread and spout the same nonsense.

Alan Dean Foster created some very appealing universes.

"Get off your phone!" "Stay right except to pass!"

I could get behind this.

Don't let facts and knowledge get in the way of a good conspiracy theory!

Why is everything a "debacle". And people complain about Claudisms. sigh

Evidence for this?

Evidence for this?

Nobody reasonable is suggesting that. Strawman.

So in a thread about the release of Opus 5.5, this is your contribution? Why?

How do you know they are nerfed, and how do you know the timeframes?

Who said that, why do you take their word as the literal truth, and most importantly, what does this have to do with a focused discussion of Opus 5.5?

>> There are many claims that current LLMs surpass humans in cognitive abilities

Where? By whom? This is certainly not (yet) the general consensus, as I understand it. Are you taking the most optimistic / untethered comments as the strawman against which you feel the need to argue?

>> the breathless rhetoric about "AGI" coming from the providers' general direction

So many commenters here see it as their ... duty? to argue against the most optimistic/unhinged (take your pick) arguments from "the other side" and then treat everybody who disagrees as a shill or an idiot.

Why is "being good at chess" a proxy for whatever AGI strawmen you want to argue against?

Maybe step back from your black-and-white ledge and think about discussing what's actually under discussion? For example, why or why not would an LLM be good at chess? Will they be good at chess? What technical limitations might preclude that?

This is a good comment and I'd like to add that I sometimes am astonished how many comments on HN are on the topic of liability or blame for this or that. I see liability as a 2nd or even 3rd order phenomenon of most of the subjects under discussion, but for whatever reason, liability always seems to come up. Maybe because it's sort of easy to reason about? Thirst for justice? Natural reaction to feeling disempowered? Whatever it is, I'd like more focus on the actual topic.

I don't find this to be the case at all.

>> AI is dropping out of the spotlight

spit take

How you get that from the OP leaves me scratching my head. What they said:

>> I can't help be hopeful that AI's sheer potential might come to invert that curve. At the very least we could really use a revolutionary technology and now we may have one.

And you get "god" and "(human) salvation" out of that?

This is pure projection. Anti-AI zealots are projecting things onto the technology and its users that simply do not (generally) exist.

>> I have a feeling

Is this the anti-AI crowd's last line of defense?

I think the point is that rather than YOU finding out the answers to those questions, and post only if the answers were indicative of some "gotcha", someone ALWAYS posts something similar to your OP as a lazy/low-effort way to discredit LLMs.

I'm waiting for the inevitable: "Well, LLMs only cured a few types of cancer"

"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants" - Issac Newton, in a 1675 letter to Robert Hooke