I use ‘O’ the most. It inserts a newline at the end of the line and starts Insert Mode after the newline.

Jokes on them. I was both

This really should be the other way around. It’s the Candy Crush owners/developers getting people addicted to the game saying, “we’re done when I say we’re done.”

Shouldn’t it be “anum”?

What did it convert from?

Where do I get me some POT-ON???

I thought pot was for smoking

Thanks! I’ll be back in a month with my new crow buddy

But how do I get a crow friend?

No, it will be the same field of technology. LLMs are just a facet of AI, currently. I’m done having this discussion with you, as you do not have the capability to grasp rational thought or have a rational discussion.

And, no. You started the insults. I responded with a couple.

That’s some pretty absurd logic. It is clear there is no point in continuing this discussion, as you are too easily trapped by logical fallacies and are too quick to jump to insults. Hopefully you can take some time to try to grow as a person.

The field of Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence does not depend on the success of Large Language Models, and LLMs quite possibly have reached their limits. I do not see that as relevant.

I am far from dumb. I got 60/60 problems correct on a proctored Raven’s Progressive Matrices as a teenager. That places my pattern recognition much higher than most of the world’s population. I taught myself C++ when I was six years old in 1997.

You’ve created a strawman by recasting my argument to a point that I am not making. I did not say “trust vendor promises” or “ignore current failures.” I said present-state-only evaluation is a bad way to judge emerging technology.

Engineering forecasting is not limited to closed-form physics. It also uses empirical progress, deployment data, cost curves, failure modes, and observed capability gains. Your pig analogy only works if AI had no demonstrated utility and no measurable improvement. That is plainly false.

Criticize cost, energy use, incentives, etc. Those are real arguments. But “some promises are hype, therefore the whole field is slop and cannot improve” is not analysis. It is just cynicism with insults attached.

You truly don’t, though. You believe it. That doesn’t make it true. We do not have enough data to know what the future holds regarding AI.

A personal anecdote is all that’s needed to refute a blanket statement like the implication that self-driving does not exist yet.

Again, it seems you are just a really upset and negative person. I feel bad for you. It would be very easy to have a pleasant discussion or debate on the topic.

If we only ever evaluated technology on its present state of being, we wouldn’t have planes for instance. That’s not a really sound methodology. “It doesn’t work now. Therefore, it should be abandoned.” Like, what?

Though, perhaps what you mean is “we shouldn’t be investing billions in unproven technology.” That, I agree with. I think most would.

I’ve been in vehicles with self-driving, and they perform better than the average driver in every situation I’ve encountered.

You seem like a really angry person. I’m sorry your experiences in life are so miserable.

We already have it

Recent LLMs are very capable at doing almost all simple computing tasks. At some point in the future, we will have AI that is more generally useful than current LLMs. If and when we have truly general purpose AI, it could benefit humanity in countless ways. It could also continue to cause harm. We can’t know for sure.

That’s not 1:1, and like I said, it depends on what you mean by smarter.

No, you! ☺️

This is true, depending on what you mean by smarter. They are undeniably more capable. However, the trendy, cool thing is to hate on AI, rejecting all else. Sure, capitalism sucks, and the powerful rich people and companies who control AI suck. AI itself, though, can very easily result in massive benefits for humanity as a whole.