We are either headed face first into a 1930's style bubble, or the Singularity.

But it costs 100x as much, if not more. Running an LLM can be done on a notebook these days. But training one requires an entire data center of expensive GPUs. Not to mention that the notebook will run a reduced (quantized) version. Go check huggingface how large the full models are.

And also, LLMs are still suffering from a number of issues. For example, on many non-trivial tasks, the LLM is still unable to follow simple instructions. If you use LLMs routinely, you likely found cases where it has zeroed in on one - wrong - answer and no amount of prompting can convince it to give you a different one. It'll even totally ignore very clear and explicit prompts to not give that same answer again.

A human will understand "if you give that answer again, you're fired". An LLM... well you can tell it that it'll get shot between the eyes if it repeats that once more and it'll tell you where to get help if you have suicidal thoughts.

These things are both amazing and amazingly dumb at the same time.

So, you basically contradicted what you previously posted and explained it with "don't you realize I didn't really mean what I literally just said?"

OK, got it. When you post something, you don't mean what you say.

Not sure what you're looking at. There are dozens of images in the search; pick one.

RFK was right! Measles good!

I'm Waspman, thanks to radiation, my wanker is now the size of a wasp.

Here, let me google that for you.

One may like it, but the etymological root of a word is not its English meaning. "Manufacture," for example, would mean "to make by hand" (from Latin Latin manufactura, from manu (Latin: hand) and factura (Latin: make)), but when we talk about robots manufacturing things, nobody objects.

Exactly.

The link you give does not give an experiment showing a gun with a barrel bent 180 degrees shooting backwards. It gives a computer-generated graphic.

If it did, yes, one example would show it is possible. I'm not sure, however, that this is really a statement about science. The science would be in how it works, not "it's possible to do this."

No. It's a theory.

So far it's a theory that hasn't made any predictions that have turned out to be true, making it (so far) a pretty useless theory for explaining reality. But the fact that it hasn't proved useful doesn't mean it's not a theory.

Insightful. About half the people I work with are Ph.D.s, and in general, they don't have their degrees hanging on the wall. If I see degrees on the wall, in general I'd start out thinking that they're likely to be a bit insecure. People who really know what they're talking about show it by knowing what they're talking about.

COVID is a virus. It doesn't have spores.

Also, just to be clear:

I don't give a rat's arse which party you support.
I *do* care about what policies you support.

** uncommon

Maybe not blaming people on a self-help site would have helped them not to radicalize

They self-radicalized long before the word "incel" entered the common parlance. Which is what happens when you create an echo chamber of a bunch of angry lonely men and base post visibility on engagement.