What the tech is being marketed as and what it’s capable of are not the same, and likely never will be. In fact all things are very rarely marketed how they truly behave, intentionally.

Everyone is still trying to figure out what these Large Reasoning Models and Large Language Models are even capable of; Apple, one of the largest companies in the world just released a white paper this past week describing the “illusion of reasoning”. If it takes a scientific paper to understand what these models are and are not capable of, I assure you they’ll be selling snake oil for years after we fully understand every nuance of their capabilities.

TL;DR Rich folks want them to be everything, so they’ll be sold as capable of everything until we repeatedly refute they are able to do so.

I'm often impressed at how good chatGPT is at generating text, but I'll admit it's hilariously terrible at chess. It loves to manifest pieces out of thin air, or make absurd illegal moves, like jumping its king halfway across the board and claiming checkmate

Really then why are they cramming AI into every app and every device and replacing jobs with it and claiming they’re saving so much time and money and they’re the best now the hardest working most efficient company and this is the future and they have a director of AI vision that’s right a director of AI vision a true visionary to lead us into the promised land where we will make money automatically please bro just let this be the automatic money cheat oh god I’m about to

Marketing does not mean functionality. AI is absolutely being sold to the public and enterprises as something that can solve everything. Obviously it can't, but it's being sold that way. I would bet the average person would be surprised by this headline solely on what they've heard about the capabilities of AI.

I don't think anyone is so stupid to believe current ai can solve everything.

And honestly, I didn't see any marketing material that would claim that.

Prepare to be delighted. Full disclosure, my Atari isn't hooked up and also I don't have the Video Chess cart even if it was, so this was fetched from Google Images.

Did the author thinks ChatGPT is in fact an AGI? It's a chatbot. Why would it be good at chess? It's like saying an Atari 2600 running a dedicated chess program can beat Google Maps at chess.

While you guys suck at using tools, I'm making up for my lack of coding experience with ai, and successfully simulating the behavior of my aether (fuck you guys. Your search for a static ether is irrelevant to how mine behaves, and you shouldn't have dismissed everybody from Diogynes to Einstein), showing soliton-like structure emergence and particle-like interactions (with 1D relativistic constraints [I'm gonna need a fucking super computer to scale to 3D]). Anyways, whether you're wrong about your latest fun fact, cutting your thumb off trying to split a 2X4, or believing any idiot you talk to, this is user error, bro. Creating functional code for my simulator has saved me months, if not years of my life. Just setting up a gui was ridiculous for a novice like me, let alone translating walls of relativistic equation results (mainly stress-energy tensor) into code a computer can use. Side note: y'all don't give a fuck about facts. Come on. We're primates. Social status is the name of the game.

This made my day

I don't think anyone is so stupid to believe current ai can solve everything.

And honestly, I didn't see any marketing material that would claim that.

Those are two different things.

1. they are craming ai everywhere because nobody wants to miss the boat and because it plays well in the stock market.

2. the people claiming it's awesome and that they are doing I don't know what with it, replacing people are mostly influencers and a few deluded people.

Ai can help people in many different roles today, so it makes sense to use it. Even in roles that is not particularly useful, it makes sense to prepare for when it is.

That is more a failure of the person who made that decision than a failing of ChatBots, lol

If you're writing a novel simulation for a non-trivial system, it might be best to learn to code so you can identify any issues in the simulation later. It's likely that LLMs do not have the information required to generate good code for this context.

You're right. I'm not relying on this shit. It's a tool. Fucking up the gui is fine, but making any changes I don't research to my simulator core could fuck up my whole project. It's a tool that likes to cater to you, and you have to work around that - really, not too different from how much pressure you put on a grinder. You gotta learn how to work it. And, you're sentiment is correct. My lack of programming experience is a big hurdle I have to account for and make safeguards against. It would be a huge help if I started from the basics. But, I mean, I also can't rub two sticks together to heat my home. Doesn't mean I can't use this tool to produce reliable results.

The tough guys and sigma males of yester-year used to say things like "If I were homeless, I would just bathe in the creek using the natural animal fats from the squirrel I caught for dinner as soap, win a new job by explaining my 21-days-in-7 workweek ethos, and buy a new home using my shares in my dad's furniture warehouse as collateral against the loan. It's not impossible to get back on your feet."

But with the advent of AI, which, actually, is supposed to do things for you, it's completely different now.

I also can't rub two sticks together to heat my home.

Dude, that fucking sucks. What is wrong with you?

The Zoom CEO, that is the video calling software, wanted to train AIs on your work emails and chat messages to create AI personalities you could send to the meetings you're paid to sit through while you drink Corona on the beach and receive a "summary" later.

The Zoom CEO, that is the video calling software, seems like a pretty stupid guy?

Yeah. Yeah, he really does. Really.. fuckin'.. dumb.