[hnfong]

Unfortunately I think you've proven the GP's point at least on the cynicism part.

Unless you have something substantial to support your claim that `LLMs are definitely (emphasis yours) not “the most incredible technology ever created by this point in our history”.`

I mean, I personally think the jury is probably still out on this one, but as long as there's a non-zero chance of this being true, the "definitely" part could use some tempering.

PS: FWIW countering (perceived) hyperbolism with an equal but opposite hyberbolism just makes you as hyperbolic as the ones you try to counter.

[latexr]

> Unless you have something substantial to support your claim that

I expected it to be clear from my use of Pichai’s words for comparison that fire and electricity (you know, the thing without which LLMs can’t even function) are substantial obvious examples. For more, see the other replies on the thread. I didn’t think it necessary to repeat all the other obvious ideas like the wheel, or farming, or medicine, or writing, or…

[hnfong]

This is exactly the kind of cynicism that is borderline offensive. According to your logic, no new technology, however wonderful, could be considered more "incredible" than fire, electricity, farming, etc. because the "higher-tier" tech depends on them. This is akin to saying libc is the bestest software ever created (except the kernel which is even more bestest) because pretty much everything depends on it.

The interpretation I prefer is not to look at the dependency chart and keep dwelling at the basic dependencies, but rather to look at the possibilities opened up by the new tech. I'd rather have people be excited at the possibilities that LLMs potentially open up, than keep dwelling on how wonderful fire and electricity is.

I don't think you even disagree that LLMs are incredible tech and that people should be excited about them. I don't think you spend substantial time every day thinking about how great fire and electricity is. I think you're just somehow frustrated at how people are hyperbolic about them, and conjuring up arguments why they shouldn't be hyped up. When something exciting comes into the fray, understandably people (the general public) have a range of reactions, and if you keep focusing on the ones who are most hyped up about the new stuff and getting triggered by them, you're missing out on the reality that people actually have a wide range of responses and the median/average person aren't really that hyperbolic.