And if we were meant to fly we'd have wings, and diseases are the gods punishing us for our sins.

Moreover, why would you want immortality?

I don't know about immortality, but I'd definitely like more than 80 years, and I'd like to be in good health for as long as I am alive.

Many books of fiction and poetry discuss the curse of immortality.

Yes, and those are almost entirely cope.

The only way this is remotely possible is if the copyright cartels get their way and make it illegal to have unlicensed local compute. Assuming that doesn't happen, I'd gladly bet a large amount that computing will be much more affordable 10 years from now.

Only if you redefine "theft" to mean learning from copyrighted material, which is more expansive than anything the RIAA or other copyright cartels have ever argued.

it has destroyed the community of code

Speak for yourself. I'm in a Discord where a bunch of people are working with AIs and each other to get Linux running on Apple Silicon Macs, and it's great to see the rapid progress.

It may have no lines of code in common with Illustrator, but everything it has was taken from code that someone wrote.

I have shocking news about where the code that you write comes from.

If you reconstruct the book by taking random words clipped out of newspapers and pasted together

Sure, which is irrelevant because that's not what LLMs do. ("What about this study that found that you can get them to recite paragraphs from Harry Potter?" Well, I can recite large portions of the Ghostbusters screenplay and my brain is not illegal).

The question is, what's anyone's motivation to write anything anymore?

I wanted a thing, so I built it, and made it available in case other people want it too. AI doesn't affect this other than making it possible to build things faster.

If a human published 700 papers and only 3 (or 30) ended up having significant errors, I'd call that a pretty good batting average, considering that the typical rate of errors may be around a third (https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/pubs/statistics.pdf). But for some reason people hold AI output to an absurd standard where if it's not 100% perfect then it's useless.

You're basically asking them to turn off their immune system

I'm not asking "them" to do anything. They can do whatever they want, including rejecting obviously useful tools. But then they shouldn't be surprised when they're quickly surpassed by others who don't share their ideological blinders.

If it verifiably works and solves important outstanding issues, then quite possibly yes.

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but I think it's amazing that multiplication and 3SUM are sub-quadratic despite that being "obviously" impossible.

I wonder what this means long term.

Long term, stronger models than what OpenAI used will be available to everyone. Some mathematicians will take advantage of those tools and do great things; others will continue their whiny gatekeeping and become irrelevant.

Assuming you consider it a "delusion" to have a p(doom) of more than 5% or so, that's not uncommon among frontier lab employees who have a pretty good idea of how LLMs work.