Signs that the bubble is about to burst. They are now claiming AGI despite being fundamentally away from it. An LLM can not ever achieve AGI. It may reasonably well PRETEND to be AGI, but at the core it's just a highly successfull letter-prediction machine. Or as a metaphor: It is "intelligence" in the sense that a toddler carefully placing one foot in front of the other while trying hard to not fall over is "running". Nope, isn't and never will be. You need a qualitative change to get there.

If they now CLAIM that they've achieved AGI, it's a sign we're nearing the end of LLM development and they're getting desperate selling the latest incremental updates. Which means the illusion is about to come crashing down.

Which is good news. Fewer data centers and lower memory prices will benefit us all.

You may want to consult other replies, where your side openly brags that they get to do that because he did racism and shiet.

Only if it is unethical and indifferent to our suffering as it begins to exterminate us.

LLMs progressing rapidly while your views are lagging by years. Current models can present coherent pro and con arguments on most topics and then can evaluate these to provide a reasoned conclusion. They don't do this by default, at least not on free models, but you can and should ask that when you prompting.

Absolutely, but GPT 5.6 was damn close to "make it". If they improved on that, they might have arrived to what they were promising only 2 years ago.

As others already mentioned, your vision doesn't work the way you think it works. You have a very narrow central field of vision where you have enough vision acuity to read any kind of text. The rest of it is just colors and blurred shapes. It gets worse/narrower at night.

I don't know, maybe you need to read what I said again. But to clarify for the less intelligent, what I mean to sound like is that I am stating that what the poster to whom I was replying said was not true. I hope that clarifies this for you. You might want to think about not reading into what people say.

Auto industry going crazy for it because they want to harvest your data and show you ads. They also learned from smartphone manufacturers and locked down ecosystem so there is no possibility of you flashing custom ROM or IP blocking ad servers, because "safety". About the only move you still have is to rip out cell modem hardware to air gap the car.

It is a huge hassle for me and the key reason I am not a Tesla owner. So there is at least -1 sale as a consequence of that design choice.

You are conflating "doing something" with solving problems.

If humans lived 10x longer, then you would also be old enough to remember when it was so goddamned hot the last time.

You also have to ask why solutions suggested by "green" are so anti-abundance and anti-humanity. My answer to that is that the system is what the system does - they are anti-abundance and anti-humanity and environmentalism is just a method of achieving these goals. This is easy to demonstrate with an example - just look at anti-nuclear energy view, if they were serious about reducing greenhouse emissions switching to nuclear energy production away from burning fossil fuels makes perfect sense, yet they oppose it. Similarly, purported sustainability position ignores the disaster of wind energy, they are still burying blades while talking about how supposedly green these are. Similar with ethanol in gasoline. Similar with lithium mining. etc. etc.

There will be a future and alarmists spreading FUD about extinction is the key reason why your kids going to hate you in 50 years when they figure out not much changed, other than some places got slightly hotter and/or wetter.

It's almost like if you deliberately sabotage something in every way possible while dishonestly subsidizing the alternative and externalizing every single one of its failures and flaws you can skew the results.

Maybe if the people making these demands were to lead by example instead of living lives of such unbelievable luxury and excess in their dozen beachfront homes people would be more likely to believe them. Especially if their demands actually made logical sense, like demanding that the 15 cargo ships that out-pollute every private automobile on the planet were dealt with rather than demanding people give up meat and air conditioning and go back to living worse than medieval peasants.

Or if they didn't all seem to be coordinated in completely ignoring that China alone outpollutes basically everyone else by a huge margin, instead relying on the hilariously dishonest bait and switch of screaming "but per capita!" as if China keeping half a billion people in abject poverty while still out-polluting everyone else somehow magically undid their pollution.