> I’ve heard from smart, well-informed people who are confident that AI is a few years away from superintelligence, and that superintelligence will be capable of truly terrifying things. And I’ve heard from smart, well-informed people who are equally confident that LLM-based AI is close to a ceiling, that models like Claude won’t even be able to do impressive work in physics, let alone conquer the world.
This is framed as an "or", as if they're contradictory.
i.e., we're entering RSI and LLMs will help to build their more capable successors under a new paradigm? Fair point, but most people saying #2 surely mean to say LLM development has been a dead end and hasn't gotten us substantially closer to AGI
normally i'd agree, for "most people"
but the author explicitly distinguished between "AI" and "LLM-based AI", and they work for an AI company, where making these distinctions are really important
parl_match · · focus · HN ↗
This is framed as an "or", as if they're contradictory.
IMO, Both of these statements are true.
ryeights · · focus · HN ↗
parl_match · · focus · HN ↗
but the author explicitly distinguished between "AI" and "LLM-based AI", and they work for an AI company, where making these distinctions are really important