Since pertinent information was withheld (that it didn't know), then by your own post you acknowledge it was a lie of omission.

The stupidity of people these days is truly beyond belief. And, yes, get the f off my lawn.

We learned back in the 80s that trying to get a neural net to emphasise what you want is actually very difficult. What it will tend to emphasise are the assumptions that underly the test data, and that's usually a completely different sort of fiction.

Who's the power provider? I see agreements on chip supply, but not on the electricity.

Wasn't Freeman Dyson at least skeptical of ever bigger and better particle accelerators as reaching diminishing returns on the amount of physics knowledge gleened per dollar spent.

Forget Freeman Dyson. Hasn't anyone taken ECON 101 as a college freshman and remember "diminishing marginal returns." And forget the harm to the environment, isn't the outragious electric bill a sign of more and more resources thrown at something to "scale it up" without considering where the scaling law levels off?

What is the revenue model? Selling what you disclose to the AI?

Or will anything beyond the most brain-dead AI be a big monthly subscription?

Will your employer insist that you not use their paid-for AI for personal use in the way of Cyber Monday that you weren't supposed to use your work Internet to purchase your Christmas presents but people did this anyway?

Or will AI gradually become useless owing to who pays the most coin to train the neural networks a certain way, becoming useless like Web search?

But was that figure provided by AI?

Even if not, we all know that 793% of all statistics are invented.

If something is inaccurately presented as being the truth, then it is a lie of omission because it is dishonest about the fact that the information isn't actually known.

Gemini is exceptionally bad, as LLMs go. I really have no idea why it is so dreadful, even compared to other LLMs. It isn't context window. and it doesn't seem to be training material either.

Cyber Implications have been noted. Mondas security is to be Cyber Vibed until we have Cyber Security capable of defeating The Doctor.

When I test the different AI systems, Google's AI system loses track of complex problems incredibly quickly. It's great on simple stuff, but for complex stuff, it's useless.

Unfortunately.... advice, overviews, etc, are very very complex problems indeed, which means that you're hitting the weakspot of their system.

I've designed a few machines - some rather more insane than others - in meticulous detail using AI. What I have not done, so far, is get an engineer to review the designs to see if any of them can be turned into something that would be usable. My suspicion is that a few might be made workable, but that has to be verified.

Having said that, producing the design probably took a significant amount of compute power and a significant amount of water. If I'd fermented that same quantity of water and provided wine to an engineering team that cost the same as the computing resources consumed, I'd probably have better designs.But, that too, is unverified. As before, it's perfectly verifiable, it just hasn't been so far.

If an engineer looks at the design and dies laughing, then I'm probably liable for funeral costs but at least there would be absolutely no question as to how good AI is at challenging engineering concepts. On the other hand, if they pause and say that there's actually a neat idea in a few of the concepts, then it becomes a question of how much of that was ideas I put in and how much is stuff the AI actually put together. Again, though, we'd have a metric.

That, to me, is the crux. It's all fine and well arguing over whether AI is any good or not (and, tbh, I would say that my feeling is that you're absolutely right), but this should be definitively measured and quantified, not assumed. There may be far better benchmarks than the designs I have - I'm good but I'm not one of the greats, so the odds of someone coming up with better measures seems high. But we're not seeing those, we're just seeing toy tests by journalists and that's not a good measure of real-world usability.

If no such benchmark values actually appear, then I think it's fair to argue that it's because nobody believes any AI out there is going to do well at them.

(I can tell you now, Gemini won't. Gemini is next to useless -- but on the Other Side.)

This means you shoud NOT, under any circumstance, run Claude at 88mph. Unless you really want to.

Well, you can make the hydrogen easier to handle by binding it to carbon... Perhaps synthesizing jet fuel with carbon recaptured from the atmosphere will win, since it doesn't require modifying the planes and the new tech is on the ground.

Everything in the visible universe is subject to lunar gravity now. That's how gravity works.

Bounties are incentives to do the legwork to discover flaws. If the cost of that discovery drops to near zero, the queue is jammed as a result, and the capacity to remediate is oversubscribed, you should stop paying bounties.

Nobody is saying you should stop fixing bugs. Only that the process of identifying them has been devalued. Which it has.