[TeMPOraL]

> People will gradually learn and discover anf the cost of keeping a model updated and running won't drastically reduce so we'll most likely see dust settling down.

As mentioned elsewhere, 3 to 5 years is some 3x to 5x as long as GPT-4 exists; some 2-3x as long as ChatGPT exists and LLMs suddenly graduated from being obscure research projects to general-purpose tools. Do you really believe the capability limit has already been hit?

Not to mention, there's lots of money and reputation invested in searching for alternatives to current transformer architecture. Are you certain that within the next year or two, one or more of the alternatives won't pan out, bringing e.g. linear scaling in place of quadratic, without loss of capabilities?

[wg0]

I'm pretty sure that statistical foundations of AI where a thing just been shy of 0.004 of the threshold value out of a million dimensional space can get miscategrized as something else will not deliver AGI or any useable and reliable AI for that matter other than that sequence of sequence mapping (voice to text, text to voice etc.) applications.

As for money and reputation, that's a lot behind gold making too in medieval times and look where that lead too.

Scientific optimism is a thinking distortion and a fallacy too.

[nativeit]

Tool seems like a strong term for whatever ChatGPT is right now. Absurdly overhyped curiosity? Insanely overengineered autocorrect? Dystopian MadLibs? Wall Street Wank Sock?

I’m not trying to downplay its potential, but I don’t know of anyone who trusts it enough for what I’d consider “tooling”.