zlacker

>>amrrs+(OP)
I think the intuition the authors are trying to capture is that they believe the models are omniscient, but also dim-witted. And the question they are collectively trying to ask is whether this will continue forever.

I've never seen this question quantified in a really compelling way, and while interesting, I'm not sure this PDF succeeds, at least not well-enough to silence dissent. I think AI maximalists will continue to think that the models are in fact getting less dim-witted, while the AI skeptics will continue to think these apparent gains are in fact entirely a biproduct of "increasing" "omniscience." The razor will have to be a lot sharper before people start moving between these groups.

But, anyway, it's still an important question to ask, because omniscient-yet-dim-witted models terminate at "superhumanly assistive" rather than "Artificial Superintelligence", which in turn economically means "another bite at the SaaS apple" instead of "phase shift in the economy." So I hope the authors will eventually succeed.

>>antics+4Q
There is no reason that omniscient-yet-dim-witted has to plateau at human intelligence.

>>sitkac+MQ
I am not sure if you mean this to refute something in what I've written but to be clear I am not arguing for or against what the authors think. I'm trying to state why I think there is a disconnect between them and more optimistic groups that work on AI.

>>antics+iS
I think that commenter was disagreeing with this line:

> because omniscient-yet-dim-witted models terminate at "superhumanly assistive"

It might be that with dim wits + enough brute force (knowledge, parallelism, trial-and-error, specialisation, speed) models could still substitute for humans and transform the economy in short order.

>>drodge+NS
And we have a good example of a dimwitted, brute-force process creating intelligent designs - evolution.