The fact that LLMs (or their client-side harnesses, at any rate) have improved substantially in the last year does not, ipso facto, mean they will continue doin

The fact that LLMs (or their client-side harnesses, at any rate) have improved substantially in the last year does not, ipso facto, mean they will continue doing so forever. Nor does it imply, even if they do keep improving, that they will displace human judgment and decision-making and that they will reach a point where they have literally zero limitations. I don't agree with _never_ outsourcing decisions to an LLM, but the parent is right to point out the importance of thinking critically instead of blindly trusting LLMs. If only to understand their biases and common failure modes. The 1920s calculator metaphor is apt because practitioners using plugboards and Hollerith machines would have been avid early adopters but still keenly aware of the limitations of the device. They used that knowledge to decompose problems into units the device could solve, and to sanity-check the outputs of problems based on their understanding of mathematics and the capabilities of the machines. I am often amazed at the dismissiveness of AI skeptics given the remarkable results we have seen in the last few years. And the stunning inefficiency of major LLM models and inaccessibility of underlying data mean there are a lot more gains to be had. But despite that, I'm even more flabbergasted by those who claim that AI superintelligence is a thing, that LLMs of all things will outcompete humans on creative and critical thinking tasks. It's a naive extrapolation at best and is completely unsupported by any coherent model of technological evolution, economics, game theory, or human history. But all that said, I'm of course biased. I am of the belief that humans can do things that machines will never be able to no matter how advanced they become. A quasi-religious belief? Perhaps. But AI boosterism just as indefensible.