They must have shown some direction in that area. After all, they've been claiming AGI for ages, are desperate for more investment, and the public don't want their data centres. They could do with some promising signs in something everyone wants.

I haven't done anything of note, but I can still spot mistakes in Fable 5.2 output, which suggests that it may not quite be the magic do-everything technology you have been sold on.

You aren't going to solve cancer with brute force, no matter how much you believe in Sam Altman.

Let's drill down on this point, since it's the one you chose to preface your argument with. Who, exactly, has been "claiming AGI," whether "for ages" or otherwise? Cite your sources.

You said "or otherwise", and Sam's claim in the post I linked to is that it will be here some time in the next 54 days. You looking forward to that?

I'll happily retract that point you cherry picked if you want, as admittedly it looks like "AGI is just round the corner" has been the claim, rather than it is already here.

You can now show your evidence that the AI companies are actively working on positive things for society like curing cancer, which you are so sure is happening soon that you think funding any other technology in that area is a waste of money. They must be getting pretty far with that, huh?

What have you done to cure cancer or prove the Riemann conjecture, anyway? Oh, wait, you answered that one already. Guess we're done here.

You do know that if there was any evidence that the AI companies planned to be a public service instead of a tool for technofeudalism, people might agree with you that it's a good thing.

AI has also done nothing to cure cancer, and the maths proofs it brute force had little use to mathematicians without the required context.