> Really, has there been a backlash against me? I hadn't noticed any change. I actually worry a lot that as I get "popular" I'll be able to get away with saying stupider stuff than I would have dared say before. This sort of thing happens to a lot of people, and I would really like to avoid it.

http://lemonodor.com/archives/001091.html

I blame Substack.

> society and the economy like never before. This process carries enormous risks and opportunities, which are currently basically... ignored (well, the risk side)

What risks are you talking about here?

take the entire stack (including all dependencies, toolchains etc.) and think about scenarios of accidental or malicious malfunction, but also reproducibility, auditability of outcomes, that sort of stuff. The overall ability to provide locked-down, performant, safe, secure deployments of high-quality, validated algorithms without breaking the bank. In other words the risks (but also the frictions / costs) in the "productionising" of algorithms.

I dont think its fair to say that LLMs have passed the Turing test.

They have a very high passing rate when the user is not actively investigating if the entity they are chatting with is an LLM.

Thus the goal post has moved to incorporate this aspect. The goal post will keep moving as LLMs improve.

From the wikipedia page you linked:

Isaac Asimov's Corollary to Clarke's First Law: "When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervour and emotion – the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right."

Why would anyone think that general intelligence is impossible when there are 8 billion copies of it running around currently?

Not achievable with current methods != Impossible

> This thread's article was written by a high-IQ intelligent author.

Does he also have a Mensa membership?

If not convincing what argument for and against do you think is the strongest?

I don't think there is any strong argument for AGI (i.e., that it is somehow coming any time soon). In my explanatory framework all developments make sense as purely statistical algorithmic advances. The surprising and interesting applications involving images, language are not really changing that fundamental reality.

There is a case to be made that with sufficient ingenuity at some point people will expand the algorithmic toolkit into more flexible and powerful dimensions. It may integrate formal logic in some shape or form, or yet to be conceived mathematical constructs.

But the type of mental leap that I think would be required just to breakout of the statistical fitting straight-jacket cannot be invented to satisfy the timing of some market craze.

If you look at the broad outline of the development of mathematics there are many areas where we have hit a complexity wall and generations of talent have not advanced an iota.

Even if we condition on some future breakthrough, the next level of mathematical / algorithmic dexterity we might reach will follow its own intrinsic logic, which will probably be very interesting but may or may not have anything to do with human intelligence.

hn is not pleased ofc.

do you mind sharing why you consider handmade hero a con ?