[c2c2c]

I am growing tired of seeing the terms "cope" and "moving the goalposts" in response to discussions around AI. Is there not value in trying to understand what the strengths and weaknesses of the technology are? How can we do that without examining the limitations of the models' current abilities? If we simply dismiss those arguments out of hand as feeble attempts to deny the inevitable rise of superintelligence, then where does that leave us? Shall we all just lay down and start praying to the machine god?

[heaney-555]

>Is there not value in trying to understand what the strengths and weaknesses of the technology are?

There is, but having that discussion without a discussion and understanding of the velocity with which those strengths are improving and those weaknesses are disappearing is pointless.

Worse, much of the discussion is already outdated by where the latest models (with proper agentic harnesses) are.

[pfdietz]

Some of us are getting tired of the obviously irrational response to these developments. There is so much argument that boils down to "this would be very bad for me, therefore it can't happen". Cope is a good word for that sort of negative wishful thinking.

Mathematicians are not going to be well-served by cowardice-based thinking on the situation confronting them.

[c2c2c]

> There is so much argument that boils down to "this would be very bad for me, therefore it can't happen".

I would gently suggest that you may be assigning the most uncharitable interpretation to people's honest attempts at having an intellectual discussion around these topics.