[antonvs]

> Have much more limited logical reasoning skills.

Relative to the best humans, perhaps, but I seriously doubt this is true in general. Most people I work with couldn’t reason nearly as well through the questions I use LLMs to answer.

It’s also worth keeping in mind that having a different approach to reasoning is not necessarily equivalent to a worse approach. Watch out for cherry-picking the cons of its approach and ignoring the pros.

[exe34]

> Relative to the best humans,

For some reason, the bar for AI is always against the best possible human, right now.

[antonvs]

It seems that 90% of discussion about AI boils down to people who feel threatened by it in some way, and are lashing out in irrational ways as a result. (Source for 90% figure: Sturgeon's Law.)

[Wowfunhappy]

But doesn't this also apply to the other side of the argument? People are invested in AI either professionally or financially just emotionally because they want it to make their lives better, and so they loose sight of AI's flaws.

I don't know who is right—which IMHO what makes this topic interesting.

[exe34]

1. X could happen.

2. I would hate if X happened.

3. Therefore X is not possible.