My annoyance is that _anyone_ would write a book on a technical subject who knows absolutely nothing about the subject. LLMs aren't a philosophical concept; th

My annoyance is that _anyone_ would write a book on a technical subject who knows absolutely nothing about the subject. LLMs aren't a philosophical concept; they're a software mechanism with myriad constraints and design limitations built in. Understanding their future demands a deep understanding of those mechanisms. So why on earth would an academic who knows zero about engineering, software, or AI techniques have the temerity to write a book suggesting he can see farther into the evolution of LLMs than, say, a carpenter or bricklayer? At least those skills know something about physical mechanisms and engineering constraints. But not Bostrom. The continued interest in a book of bold uninformed argumentation that's so obviously insubstantial just goes to show how bad humans are at telling the difference between useful knowledge and wild speculation. It's almost as silly as caring whether the prognostications of Rod Brooks (or worse still, Ray Kurzweil) come true. As if guessing right actually meant something...