What observation, if you saw it, do you think would falsify that hypothesis?

It seems unlikely people will employ only ML models, especially LLM, to achieve great results: they will combine it with human insights (through direction and concrete algorithms).

It's obvious that's happening with LLMs even today to ensure they don't spew out too much bullshit or harmful content. So let's get to a point where we can trust AI as-is first, and let's talk about what's needed to achieve the next milestone after and if we get there.

And I love asking every new iteration of ChatGPT/Gemini something along the lines of "What day was yesterday if yesterday was a Thursday?" It just makes me giggle.

Thanks for that what day was yesterday prompt. I have ran across these situations before but never quite like that.

What is great about that Thursday prompt is how naked the LLM is to the reality that it knows absolutely nothing in the way we think of "to know". The bubble we are in is just awesome to behold.

Thursday question seems fine for me… but I have different standard questions that do fail, e.g. non-Euclidian triangles:

https://chatgpt.com/share/b657f0cd-34f9-4f5c-8ac9-c3a06c7101...

A significant part of the problem is that a majority of people are unaware of just how simple what they consider "intelligence" really is. You don't need actual intelligence to replace the public-facing social role of a politician, or a talking head, or a reactive-only middle manager. You just need words strung together that fit a problem.

It is not artificial? so it is natural then?