[kenjackson]

The issue is that before GPT models basically were useless for any conversation. We are literally in science fiction realm. From a text conversation perspective the gap between where we are at and what’s left to get to is relatively small.

In my opinion, the main thing we need to do is have training happen continuously. And probably more real world data (from sensors).

[the_gastropod]

The ELIZA effect has been around since 1966. I think lots of folks feel “AI” has advanced much more quickly that it really has because of the nature of its many past boom / bust cycles.

[kenjackson]

ELIZA has never done well in conversational tests. GPT-4.5, for example, tends to out-human humans. Like I could never ask ELIZA this question and get anything close to a decent response: "Give me three points that convey the impact that 9/11 had on rap music in the 21st century with some good examples?" Asking ChatGPT today gives me an answer that I'd give an A grade to a strong college student. ELIZA's response -- "What do you think?".

[hgs3]

> what’s left to get to is relatively small

Not necessarily. In many (most?) areas of tech the rate of advancement follows a logarithmic curve. That is to say, the first 90% is achieved quickly but the last 10% takes significantly more time.