> We have every right to expect machines to do things we can’t. Not really, this makes little sense in general, but also when in comes to this specific type is

> We have every right to expect machines to do things we can’t. Not really, this makes little sense in general, but also when in comes to this specific type is machine. In general: you can have a machine that is worse than human in everything that it does yet still be immensely valuable because it's very cheap. In this specific case: > AGI should be a step forward Nope, read the definition. Matching human level intelligence, warts and all, will by definition reach AGI. > in many cases LLMs are a step backwards That's ok, use them in cases where it's a step forward, what's the big deal? > note the bait and switch from “we’re going to build AGI that can revolutionize the world” to “give us some credit, our systems make errors and humans do, too”. Ah, well, again, not really, the author just has unrealistic model of the minimum requirements for a revolution.