does it mean people that can build languages and compilers are not humans? What is the point you're trying to make?

It means that's a really high bar for intelligence, human or otherwise. If AGI is "as good as a human, and the test is a trick task that most humans would fail at (especially considering the weasel requirement that it additionally has to be faster), why is that considered a reasonable bar for human-grade intelligence.

According to Ilya Sutskever: "results from scaling up pre-training have plateaued".

https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/o...

They're trying other techniques to improve what we already have atm.

and we plow through plateaus every 6 months, regularly, by inventing something new. I thought we were engineers, not some kind of amish cult.

Keep doing it until you get better at it. Not caring about what others think is a skill.

I just want to appreciate how the author used the sane "fear of not being good enough" instead of the idiotic "impostor syndrome" that everyone uses to mean the same.

What’s wrong with impostor syndrome? Perhaps overused term but that for a good reason, many people are battling the same insecurities while others are confident on hot air. Very few have a backing for being confident.

Because impostor syndrome was a term supposed to describe a medical phenomenon that proved not to exist. Around my parts we call that "bullshit".

And it was adopted to mean what we all know it means. The origin may be completely wrong but it got a meaning that is not too far off.

"Imposter syndrome" is just the term we have given to "fear of not being good enough". What is wrong with coming up with a term for that fear?

I don't agree with medicalization of normal human experience. It's not a syndrome if it happens to everyone and it's perfectly normal. It's also a way to justify being a pussy, which is a sentiment I don't condone under any circumstance.

I read the article and frankly I'm not sure what she means by it.

It's absolutely coming. I'm curious to see what their ad units will look like. IMHO ads in an LLM search world will look more like Facebook ads than Google ads. Brand advertising will stay focused on YouTube while click to buy and click to download are probably the best fit for the medium.

in the current state they are already plenty useful, I don't think it's worth proving mathematically that something can work 100% of the times when 80% is good enough.

It might not be perfect yet but my huble Model 3 drove me to a doctor appointment all by itself from my driveway last week. I would say it's pretty damn impressive the kind of progress they were able to make.

Google's LLM can ingest humongous contexts. Check it out.

I have a slightly different view. IMHO LLMs are excellent rubber ducks or pair programmers. The rate at which I can try ideas and get them back is much higher than what I would be doing by myself. It gets me unstuck in places where I might have spent the best part of a day in the past.

My experience differs: if at all, they get me unstuck by trying to shove bad ideas, which allows me to realize "oh, that's bad, let's not do that". But it's also extremely frustrating, because a stream of bad ideas from a human has some hope they'll learn, but here I know I'll get the same BS, only with an annoying and inhumane apology boilerplate.

Not my experience at all. What kind of code are you using it for?

Not everyone does CRUD applications.