https://didof.dev/blog/talkie-1930-llm-reasoning/ seems like a decent overview

I don't really see how you can possibly have it both ways.

I've never understood this idea that art is some special, unique domain. We already replaced humans with cameras and yet I don't see a whole lot of "cameras sacrifice our humanity" discourse.

People still enjoy tons of hobbies where humans are clearly worse than machines - they ride horses, they do sewing, there's a whole industry of hand-crafted goods. I mean, goodness, the Olympics is a celebration human triumph, and yet cars make our sprinters look pathetic.

Have you considered maybe reading this comment out loud in front of a mirror?

"Limits except for Storage" seems even easier - I don't think I've ever heard of a storage-based billing story, although I'm sure one or two exist

Moving into the future slightly: they're already getting decent at video games, and if they can win at Counterstrike they can probably also win at real-life Drone Warfare.

I'd say the risks are mostly still hypothetical, though. There's a ton of reading out there if you take that idea seriously, but I don't blame you if you dismiss it as being a bit too "Science Fiction"

Computers do admittedly claim the Apollo program pretty early in, so I'll definitely concede that one - just curious if other revolutions have really lived up to that bar. As someone who grew up on modems, I struggle to view the modern world as really having a "killer app" that really couldn't have been done in the 90s

What possible counter-argument can you offer to that?

If you care about saving the environment, you could do vastly more by protesting a dozen different causes. You can't give any reason this cause is special - just vague "environmental and legal problems" that probably add up to a half-dozen anecdotes. Meanwhile, Google is out there spending hundreds of billions of dollars and racking up it's own record of proven environmental and legal problems, and you can't even bring yourself to say "yeah, and I condemn Google and all other data centers" - partly because you're using a data center to send the message in the first place

Literally no one has 4 years of experience with LLMs, because they haven't existed for four years. Today's experts are tomorrow's college graduates.

LLMs didn't even exist when we started expressing concern about global warming, the internet still uses the vast majority of data centers and thus power, smartphone manufacturing is a nightmare on multiple levels, the environmental effects of factory farming are staggering even if you apply zero moral weight to the suffering, the existence of automobiles... what automobiles used to be like...

It just seems bizarre to care about these issues solely in the context of one particular technology, while giving a free pass to everything prior.

Once you've used a BBS or modem, "online banking" is an obvious idea - just a very difficult one to implement until you add on decades of security and improved connectivity.

But also, the article is explicitly arguing against armageddon.

The neckbeards that wrote C tend to view LLMs as the obvious next step, and a lot of them actively use them for hobby projects even if they're not quite "maintain the Linux Kernel" tier yet.

I'm just not following the logic at all.

We build vastly more ambitious software today than we did in the 80s