The article mentions something important and doesn't elaborate, that is, to trust the scientific method. I've seen a few times state of the art developments th

The article mentions something important and doesn't elaborate, that is, to trust the scientific method. I've seen a few times state of the art developments that appeared to upend everything in my field. Only then with the passage of time do we then see that, yes the development is great for x, but older approaches are still better for y. With 'better' running a gamut of considerations, such as speed, accuracy, complexity, practicality, and so on. ChatGPT is dazzling but I wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years we find that traditional NLP techniques have better precision for, e.g., language detection or information extraction than GPT-x (I'm making this example up), that evaluations from 2023 weren't rigorous enough, research was misleading, researchers were biased etc. Hopefully cooler heads can prevail via the scientific method.