I was thinking a nice golden throne. More appropriate for a god-emperor.

I like the ‘:has’ pun in the title too. Supporting that is a real game changer!

Oh no, not Lucas!

Do you have any theories as to why this is the case? I haven’t gone anywhere near it, so I have no idea. I imagine it’s tied up with the way it processes things from a language-first perspective, which I gather is why it’s bad at math. I really don’t understand enough to wrap my head around why we can’t seem to combine LLM and traditional computational logic.

It really is. With a dash of cognitive dissonance thrown in.

My sense in reading the article was not that the author thinks artificial general intelligence is impossible, but that we’re a lot farther away from it than recent events might lead you to believe. The whole article is about the human tendency to conflate language ability and intelligence, and the author is making the argument both that natural language does not imply understanding of meaning and that those financially invested in current “AI” benefit from the popular assumption that it does. The appearance or perception of intelligence increases the market value of AIs, even if what they’re doing is more analogous to the actions of a very sophisticated parrot.

Edit all of which is to say, I don’t think the article is asserting that true AI is impossible, just that there’s a lot more to it than smooth language usage. I don’t think she’d say never, but probably that there’s a lot more to figure out—a good deal more than some seem to think—before we get Skynet.

14 years myself. More than a third of my life. Your bad relationship analogy is a pretty good one (the analogy, that is). I was in a real life one of those about the same time I joined reddit. Glad that one didn’t last nearly as long!