Always a welcome and thoughtful opinion, but not correct about the potential for LLM. Waving away their output as "BS" is awfully flip, and IMO is hence one mor

Always a welcome and thoughtful opinion, but not correct about the potential for LLM. Waving away their output as "BS" is awfully flip, and IMO is hence one more example of Ximm's Law (that every critique of AI assumes to some degree that contemporary implementations will not, or cannot, be improved upon.) One might find ambiguity in his criticism though, that LLM alone are insufficient... but, that's what Ximm's Law is saying. It's not very interesting to (as I would say, he does here) take on straw, rather than steel. (A steely defense of LLM is to say that no one is particularly interested in scaling LLM without other improvements, though scaling alone provides improvements; multi-modal, multi-language, long-context, and most of all augmented systems which integrate LLM into systems rather than making them "systems on a chop", are where things look and IMO will be interesting.)