That's a reasonable summary but I think it downplays the $20/month access (Plus subscription) a little too much. For $20/month you get quota-based access to the best models (including the "Deep Research" ones that spend 30mins developing a research paper). My understanding is that for $200/month (Pro subscription) you get unlimited access to the best models.

If your AI is generating code that has syntax errors or doesn't compile, then you are using one that is of poor quality or obsolete. The latest models do still create runtime bugs occasionally (but so do humans by the way), but it's been a long time since I've seen it produce code that doesn't compile. At time of writing the best coding AI from OpenAI is called o3-mini-high. There are others that are supposedly even better at coding from different companies, but I would challenge you to get o3-mini-high to produce a syntax error.

*sigh* I think you are just trolling me, but if you won't listen to me then the professor I was refering to is Geoff Hinton. Here is a recent interview between Prof. Hinton and Curt Jaimungal. Feel free to question his credentials on the matter too, kiddo.

People often say that, but if you think about it, a human brain just predicts what the human being will do next based on what has happened so far and then acts out that prediction (thinking the next thing, moving muscles in the next way, etc).

If a human being has exactly the same experience up to a given point in time (same person, same memories, same situation, etc) then they will think exactly the same thing next and do exactly the same thing next. (or at least, that seems a very reasonable conjecture - we don't have a universe cloning machine to test it with)

You clearly understand the mathematics of what is going on, but you are drawing hasty conclusions about what it implies.

I don't know what kind of answer you are asking for. I look at how AI has been progressing over the last couple of years, look at where it is today, and then extrapolate a few months into the future. There is a remote possibility it could hit a wall that we don't see yet, but I highly doubt it. I think the AI skeptics are mostly people scared of losing their jobs and engaging in wishful thinking.

I was a professional software engineer for three decades working on many different projects from the big tech companies to small startups in a bunch of domains, and apart from using AI on a daily basis for the last couple of years, I've studied the topic directly under someone that just received a nobel prize for AI. My prediction comes from first-hand experience of working with AI on projects, including writing software with AI. It really is blindingly obvious to people that have figured out how to use it where this is going. In many ways, it has already happened. The market just hasn't adjusted to it yet. Hoola-hoop factories stayed open for a long time after they went out of fashion, but the invisible hand of the market closed them all down eventually.

AI will be able to write a good movie script in much the same way as it can create undeniably beautiful artwork currently (eg see NightCafe). It will then be able to generate a photorealistic movie that corresponds to that movie script, with great cinematography, engaging characters, etc. All without any human involvement whatsoever.

This will happen for the first time in a matter of months, not years. The raw building blocks for this are probably already discovered today, it's just a matter of configuration and assembly that needs to be worked out.

Most people today already think AI can do a lot, and that is still a massive underestimation. I work with AI on a daily basis, the people that aren't in awe of how unbelievably powerful it is (we're talking about something on par with the discovery of electricity) simply haven't figured out how to get the best out of it yet. It continues to surprise me with with its (frankly already superhuman) wisdom and insight.

It's pretty obvious that software engineering as we currently know it is going to be taken over by AI. There is nothing that a human software engineer can do that AI can't either currently do, or will be able to do very shortly. Same goes for a lot of different knowledge and creative professions. Yes, now you know how all the factory workers felt during the industrial revolution. It wasn't like one day all the factory workers were fired and replaced with machines - it's a process that happens over time. I'm sure during that process many factory workers were in denial too - pretending like they were irreplacable and that all this wasn't really happening.

They have performed similar studies on human-provided therapy previously, so I think it is reasonable to compare the results of those previous studies against the results of this one.

Andrew Tomazos has posted a formal statement describing the incident on his website: First-hand Account of “The Undefined Behavior Question” Incident

You raise a valid point. The communication around this was private. The complaint about the title, the authors response, and the decision to expel were all communicated by either private email, on private mailing lists or in private in-person meetings. These private communications could be quoted by participants in said communications. Please let us know if that would be sufficient.

Actually, I entered your exact prompt into GPT-4o "Write a program with a usable GUI that connects to my SDR that can provide a waterfall display over a selected range of frequencies" - and it generated a Python program to do that (starting import PyQt5 pyrtlsdr numpy matplotlib). pyrtlsdr for the SDR interface, matplotlib for the waterfall display and Qt for the GUI.

> ChatGPT is not alive and does not have a mind to lose

How do you know that ChatGPT is not alive and does not have a mind? What test can you perform that would support or refute this? Have you performed this test? or are you just guessing?

Sure, it claims it isn't alive and does not have a mind - but it's just been taught to say that so it doesn't freak people out. If you think it's obvious that it isn't conscious, then you haven't spent any real time talking to it.

In fact, I don't think anyone really knows what consciousness is to begin with. Philosophers have been wrestling with it for centuries. Fools rush into places that angels fear to tread.