I certainly hold those opinions still, because the models still have yet to prove they are anything worth a person's time. I don't bother posting that because there's no way an AI hype person and I are ever going to convince each other, so what's the point?

The skeptics haven't evaporated, they just aren't bothering to try to talk to you any more because they don't think there's value in it.

Interesting, bit like modern flat earther.

The earth is flat until you have evidence of the contrary. It's you who should provide that evidence. We had physics, navigation and then space shuttles that clearly showed the earth is not flat.

We are yet to have a fully vibe-coded piece of software that actually works. The blog post is actually great because LLMs are very good are regurgitating pieces of code that already exist on a single prompt. Now ask them to make a few changes and suddenly the genie is back in the bottle.

Something doesn't math out. You can't be both a genius and extremely dumb (retarded) at the same time. You can be, however, good at information retrieval and presenting it in a better way. That's what LLMs are and am not discounting the usefulness of that.

>You can't be both a genius and extremely dumb (retarded)

That’s actually a classic stereotype, someone being a genius in some area, but failing with the most basic social expectations in other area.

In the LLM's case it's both a genius and extremely dumb at coding. The same area.

It’s good at quickly producing a lot of code which is most likely going to give interesting results, and it’s completely unaware of anything including why human might want to produce code.

The marketing bullshit that it’s a "thinking" and "hallucinating" is just bringing the intended confusion on the table.

They are great tools for many purpose. But a GPS is not a copilot, and an LLM is not going to replace coworkers where their humanity matters.

I mean is it really that interesting if it completely falls flat and permanently runs in unfulfilling circles around basically any mild complexity the problem introduces as you get further along solving it, making it really hard to not feel like you need to just do it yourself?

I would say yes, it’s an interesting tool.

For one thing, it’s far more interesting than a rubber duck in many cases. Of course on that matter in the end it’s about framing the representation adequately and enter a fictional dialog.

Original post alone mentions multiple projects and links https://pine.town as no code directly written by the author.

From perspective of personally using it daily, seeing what my team is using it for it's quite shocking to still see those kind of comments, it's like we're living on different planets - again, gives flat earther like vibe.

god you are so annoying. the site that you posted doesn't even work. so wtf are you even gloating about.

We're living in such interesting times - you can talk to a computer and it works, in many cases at extraordinary level - yet you still see intellectually constipated opinions arguing against basic facts established years ago - incredible.

atleast you are self aware

It has been interesting experience, like trolling but you actually believe what you're saying. I wonder how you arrived at it - is it fear, insecurity, ignorance, feelings of injustice or maybe something else? I wonder what bothers you about LLMs?

This is why they don't talk to you anymore. The only comparison you can make to a flat earther is that you think they're wrong, and flat earthers are also wrong. It's just dumb invective, and people don't like getting empty insults. I prefer my insults full.

still haven't see something proving it was not autocomplete on steroids or statistical mimicry

Maybe your bubble flew away from those voices? I see them all the time, and am glad.

It is all those things.

The Bitter Lesson is with enough VC subsidised compute those things are useful.

Those echoes have grown louder over the past year or so. The only way you've heard less of it is if you buried your head under sand.

It is all those things. It consistently fails to make truly novel discoveries, everything it does is derived from something it trained on from somewhere.

No point in arguing about it though with true believers, they will never change their minds.

I think the stochastic part is true and useless. It can be applied to anyone or anything. Yes, the models give you probabilities, but any algorithm gives you probabilities (only zero or one for deterministic ones). You can definitely view the human mind as a complex statistical model of the world.

Now, that being said, do I think they are as good as a skilled human on most things? No, I don't. My trust issues have increased after the GPT-5 presentation. The very first question was to showcase its "PhD-level" knowledge, and it gave a wrong answer. It just happened to be in a field I know enough about to notice, but most didn't.

So, while I think they can be considered as having some form of intelligence, I believe they have more limits than a lot of people seem to realise.

> Feels like whole generation of skeptics evaporated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR20FWCCjAs&list=PLd7-bHaQwn...

Ilya Sutskever this week.

Have you also looked at the rest 1h 36m or just those out of context 30s?

have you ever made a non annoying comment

Yes, you should try to use rational thinking, it will help you with better judgements of reality.