It's not well defined what he's defending against or what it looks like when an agent goes bad (or how to check their motivations, etc). This is a money grab, nothing more.

If/when true AGI is achieved, only a fool would announce it. What would announcing it do for you? Make you famous? Rich? Cool. Know what's better than all that?

Not telling a damn soul and using the AGI quietly to do whatever the Hell you want. If you want to be rich, the AGI will tell you how to become rich. If you want to be famous, the AGI will tell you how to become famous. You can do both. And you don't have to stop there. A real, vastly superior AGI enables the person controlling it to do anything. The second you tell people about it, you'll lose control over it and then you're the famous idiot who did a cool thing one time. Kids in elementary school will recite your name back on a test. And you could have had everything.

Anyone smart enough to crack AGI can't also be stupid enough to advertise when they do it.

Obvious trolls be obvious.

What a sad gaslighter to actually claim no tariffs on Russia isn't a thing.

What he says and does isn't tolerable. It's pretty simple.

I read it as 4.5 didn't end up performing as well as hoped in the real world and 4.1 being a direct iteration of 4o rather than 4.5.

They're operating with parallel code lines because each is targeting different use cases.

These are all issues directly related to regulation and unnecessary red tape created out of NIMBYism and irrational fear around radiation. India, Canada, and China aren't stupid. They're building and/or modernizing nuclear power plants like crazy because they're so effective at reliable baseline power, which renewables simply are not. In the US, we force years - sometimes decades - of reviews and permits and defending court cases and other bullshit unrelated to the construction and operation of clean, safe nuclear power.

The other issue going to cost is that the US - again, stupidly - bars reuse of high energy spent fuel. If you simply separate the low energy (relatively safe, but useless for generating power) waste from the high energy fuel remaining and feed the high energy stuff back in, you can extract nearly all the energy, save a ton of fuel costs, mine less fuel, and have vastly less volume of waste and vastly less energetic waste.

Let's assume some sort of absolute mandate were passed to build 5 CANDU-6 (known, proven, safe, reliable design) reactors. No reviews, no permits, no red tape, no lawsuits. Just build the damn things now. You can get one operational in ~3.5 years, all of them in about 4ish years. South Korea and China have built PWRs in 5. Assuming we also lifted the ban on fuel reprocessing, CANDU-6 plants will produce power at a cost of 5-6 cents per kWh, yielding a retail price of 13-17 cents per kWh. US average is about 16.2 cents, California has rates pushing 50 cents. But we're too stupid to get out of our own way and just do it, so we'll keep strangling the poor and middle class economically.

Youâ(TM)re right. This amazing achievement isnâ(TM)t right yet. We should just give up.

It's mimicked intelligence. You're absolutely right that - under the hood - there's not the sort of traditionally cognitive processing happening that we might consider intelligence. That can be a distinction without a difference if the output is the same, and for quite a lot of things, they're becoming indistinguishable.

I think the real challenge for LLMs specifically is the training data. Between the limits placed technically and legally, malicious poisoning already happening, and the breakdown of function seen when LLM generated content is repeatedly added to its training data (i.e., "model collapse"). However, I also think that by the time we start to see major effects of this, the LLMs of today will have evolved to largely work around this limitation and the underlying process for generating output will be far less susceptible to the problems seen today. Time will tell whether that's overly optimistic, but there's a ton of development in this space toward better approaches.

Two decades ago, everybody and their brother were charging head-first toward six figure salaries (those used to mean something) and the easy life of playing arcade games at a startup waiting to become millionaires. Anyone who thought this was sustainable - particularly for the general population - was failing to think. Coding ability, like most things, is an innate skill advanced by training. You can take people with little innate talent and train them to get better just like you can take Average Joe and teach him to swim faster. But Average Joe swimmer and Average Jane coder are never going to be particularly valuable in that role long term. Once the stupid money turned off, value had to be reassessed, and lots of Galaga arcades went up on eBay.

Never play to the fads. Find something you're good at naturally that's valuable long term, develop your skills to become great at it, and market yourself appropriately.

That is not an entirely unfair observation.

#1 is basically already happening.

#2 sounds promising.