>> the breathless rhetoric about "AGI" coming from the providers' general direction So many commenters here see it as their ... duty? to argue against the most

>> the breathless rhetoric about "AGI" coming from the providers' general direction So many commenters here see it as their ... duty? to argue against the most optimistic/unhinged (take your pick) arguments from "the other side" and then treat everybody who disagrees as a shill or an idiot. Why is "being good at chess" a proxy for whatever AGI strawmen you want to argue against? Maybe step back from your black-and-white ledge and think about discussing what's actually under discussion? For example, why or why not would an LLM be good at chess? Will they be good at chess? What technical limitations might preclude that?