I've never seen an essay intentionally miss the point so hard. Currently people use these systems to generate the same kind of artifacts that traditionally woul

I've never seen an essay intentionally miss the point so hard. Currently people use these systems to generate the same kind of artifacts that traditionally would be written by a human. Since there is such a clear delineation I seen no good reason to make the distinction. Likewise a person you hire "could" take over the country and start a genocide, but it's rightfully low on your priority list because it's so unlikely that it's effectively impossible. Now an AI being rude or very unhelpul/harmful to your customer is a more pressing concern. And you don't have that confidence with most people either which is why we go through hiring processes. The statics here are key and AI companies are geniuses at lying with statistics. I could shuffle a dictionary and outputting a random word each time and answer any hard problem. The entire point of AI is that you can do MUCH better than "random". Can anyone tell me which algorithm (this or chatgpt) has a higher likelihood of producing a proof of the RH after n tokens? No, they can't. But chatgpt can generate things in human timescale that look more like proofs than my bruteforce approach so people (investors) give it the benefit of the doubt even if it's not earned and could well be LESS capable than bruteforce as strange as it sounds.