[sporkland]

> There's so much good stuff in this post.

The post starts off so cynical. I know a few people at anthropic and oai and the simplest explanation also matches my observations that they actually believe what they say. That agents will be doing the bulk of the programming in the not so distant future. They believe they themselves will be out of jobs at that point.

They aren't managing some message and trying to teach the anti AI folks a lesson.

[nsagent]

Then they are naive. I've seen this a lot first hand during my PhD. Interpreting results in a way that reinforces their beliefs and ignores alternate hypotheses.

Frequently, those alternative hypotheses are demonstrated to be true. For example, "emergence" as was researched and proclaimed by many labs, including places like OpenAI and Anthropic is due to using too few discrete steps in sampling a continuous phenomenon. See "Are Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models a Mirage?" [1] for example.

[1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.15004

[27183]

The number of people who think the emergence thing is settled smh... It's been a thing for at least 30yr, answering it one way or the other would be a big deal. It does nobody any favors having these infinitely capitalized hype firms calling themselves "labs".

[nsagent]

Sadly, like intelligence and reasoning, I think emergence is a word that people discuss while having different understandings of what the word means.

In the paper I linked, they talk of a particular take on the word that is commonly discussed in the ML research: between one discrete step and the next a phenomenon came into existence without existing before (i.e. it occurred spontaneously). The paper then goes on to refute specific claims. That's all I'm pointing out (I could point out similar issues with research into reasoning).

I think it's difficult to pin down "emergence" in the general sense as it likely goes into a deep philosophical argument like consciousness, so I'm unwilling to state whether or not some notion of "emergence" actually takes place. In that sense I agree with you.

[afavour]

> I know a few people at anthropic and oai

> They aren't managing some message and trying to teach the anti AI folks a lesson.

Unless you know the senior execs in charge of marketing at these companies I don't know how you can make that assertion. I believe that a lot of the folks at these companies earnestly believe in the work they are doing. But a belief held by software engineers is not automatically shared by the marketing department, nor by senior execs.

"Anthropic is a giant company with a lot at stake and will seek to capitalize on any marketing opportunity" doesn't strike me as cynical so much as a statement of fact.

[krater23]

I'm sure that Jehovah's Witnesses believe what they say. But thats not a reason to let them in my house.

[twister2920]

> They believe they themselves will be out of jobs at that point.

now THAT is cynical