[deltaninenine]

>Bing search and customer service chatbots, for example, give a layer of indirection

There is no layer of indirection you are directly chatting with the AI. You are not having a third party describing his experience with the AI to you.

>I argue that too many people already have a bias towards believing ChatGPT/LLMs equals AGI, because the media has primed them to believe that.

No point in arguing if you don't have some form of evidence. My evidence is there isn't a single person on this thread who is fooled by AI or isn't aware of the limitations of current gen AIs.

You just need to find one person in this entire thread who fits your description, link it here and you'll be right as you falsified my statement. This is the data driven Conclusion.

Let's use data to get to the bottom of this. Seriously.

[gregjor]

I gave my anecdotal evidence, and the evidence of numerous posts on HN and elsewhere you can easily search for. Or just look at the votes on our comments.

Getting one person to post here with one opinion or another doesn't constitute useful data. It just adds one more anecdote. It looks like no one besides the two of us pay attention to this thread.

In any case I engaged to express my opinion, not to prove you or myself right or wrong in our opinions. Time will tell.

[deltaninenine]

>Or just look at the votes on our comments.

Votes are a popularity contest. I have a lot of downvotes. So you win the popularity contest. It's fine. Im ok with that.

I'm more going for the correctness contest here. Who's actually right? That's all I care about here.

>Getting one person to post here with one opinion or another doesn't constitute useful data

This isn't true. One person lends data to your case. Why? Because my claim is that nearly all people on HN aren't fooled by chatGPT. So if you say it's so common then just find one.

My claim is that it's so uncommon you can't even find one.

>I gave my anecdotal evidence, and the evidence of numerous posts on HN and elsewhere you can easily search for

I searched for this. I could not find one. You claim it's easily found, so you can win this debate by simply finding one comment that proves your point and link it here. If it's as common as you say then at least one person can be found. This makes sense.