âMost articles seem to default to either full embrace of AI companiesâ claims or blanket skepticism, with relatively few spotlighting the strongest version of arguments on both sides of a debate. â Never agreed with anything as strongly in my life. Both these things are bad and we donât need to choose a side between them. And note that the issue here isnât about these things being âextremeâ. An article that actually tries to make a case for foom by 2027, or âthis is all nonsense, itâs just fancy autocomplete and overfitting on meaningless benchmarksâ could easily be excellent. The problem is people not giving reasons for their stances, and either re-writing PR, or just expressing social distaste for Silicon Valley, as a substitute.
âMost articles seem to default to either full embrace of AI companiesâ claims or blanket skepticism, with relatively few spotlighting the strongest version of arguments on both sides of a debate. â Never agreed with anything as strongly in my life. Both these things are bad and we donât need to choose a side between them. And note that the issue here isnât about these things being âextremeâ. An article that actually tries to make a case for foom by 2027, or âthis is all nonsense, itâs just fancy autocomplete and overfitting on meaningless benchmarksâ could easily be excellent. The problem is people not giving reasons for their stances, and either re-writing PR, or just expressing social distaste for Silicon Valley, as a substitute.