> It's incredible that people still haven't figured out or won't accept or plan for technology to continue to improve. Especially given how obvious the rapid im

> It's incredible that people still haven't figured out or won't accept or plan for technology to continue to improve. Especially given how obvious the rapid improvement in this area has been. If you wrote this about aeroplanes in the mid-1960s, despite the previous 40-50 years of rapid improvement, you'd be wrong. The same would be true for bicycles, and automobiles - despite decades of incremental and noteworthy-for-specific-context improvements, there's been no fundamental changes in these (and many other technologies) that reflects the early progress. Yes, modern cars are safer, more comfortable, more fuel efficient (sometimes), but they get nothing done that wasn't possible with a car from the mid-1950s. Why would you assume that the recent past of LLMs provides an outline of what the future of AI in general (not just LLMs) is going to be?