[danielmarkbruce]

One may reasonably respond:

''' This is your view of a piece of technology which cost hundreds of millions to train and thousands of person years of research before that?

This is where my fear comes from: glib assessments of this technology coupled with unwavering belief that human intelligence is untouchable. '''

[billbrown]

You could respond that way. I'm not sure where I devalued ChatGPT in my response in a similar fashion that you dismissed a "first year." (I will cop to regarding humans and their needs as superior to any technology.)

In fact, my entire "skin in the game" criticism is based on the idea that it _will_ be used that way, that it's powerful enough that people will invest into it too much hope, foresight, and insight. I have the utmost respect for the work being done and the highly-delimited benefit it provides.

I just don't regard it as "intelligent" nor do I believe it is the path to AGI.

[danielmarkbruce]

It's already being used that way, because it's hugely valuable. People with skin in the game want to save money. Some partners at firms are concerned that it will be used so extensively that no one will be able to become a good lawyer because one needs to go through the stage of doing a lot of grunt work for it to all sink in. A partner at a firm commented to me ~ "this is amazing. I'd never have been able to become the lawyer I am without doing what this does though. I wonder what will happen."