Most of this is a hobbyist trap. It's really not the next big thing. LLMs have done ONE thing well (to an extent) and that's eclipsing language barriers for m

Most of this is a hobbyist trap. It's really not the next big thing. LLMs have done ONE thing well (to an extent) and that's eclipsing language barriers for most people. It's an advance in data compression, not artificial intelligence. I take offense to this sort of clean segmentation of the human brain into functions. "AI" is already a solved problem, because "created" intelligence is all around us. The challenge is to design a half-measure that aids us economically (AI (even in disingenuous forms like LLMs) is immaterial to human happiness otherwise, and mostly detrimental to it). This is an entirely NEW class of problem, because everything else that we've invented so far has been truly new and fit into a new niche (cars, electricity, scientific medicine, digital telecommunications, etc). Making "AI" "safe" / "compatible" is like trying to fit a work of art or enforcing a weird, arbitrary piece of legislation. That is why it's ""disruptive"". In other words, this stuff ended up being the centerpiece when it was supposed to just be a sort of financial crutch for companies built on the motto "grow or you're dead". Also, most of the tech there that's fit into those neat "boxes" is very weak at best. It's like calling a parser a compiler. And as an aside, maybe GOFAI was "AI-hard". That's likely why the term bowed out so quickly. ;^>