> these tools are limited to producing text and software
Oh good, so they can't produce images or do graphic design work. Thus it follows that movies being sequences of images are obviously completely safe. And since they can't synthesize sounds obviously things like voice acting, call center jobs, and certainly music production are entirely off the table. And it sure is a good thing they can't accept video and audio streams as input because otherwise we might need to worry about their application to robotics and all the trade jobs that could eventually be automated as a result. But those are 100% immune thanks to the aforementioned limitations. Yeah. Definitely. /s
> LLM based 'agents' will (1) be on par with a human using a computer
They are already substantially more capable when it comes to writing exploits and decompiling binaries than the vast majority of professionals. Sure a lot of that is raw persistence as opposed to novel reasoning but when it comes to employment prospects the "how" doesn't matter only the "what".
> disruptively displace the workforce, well that's just not what we're seeing
You would deny that we fast approach a cliff on the basis that we are not yet in free fall? Surely you see how absurd that is?
By that logic you can bury your head in the sand given literally any situation. Incoming hurricane tomorrow? That's purely the opinion of a talking head. No point to debating it, I'm ignoring the mandatory evacuation. Wildfire broke containment? That's a lot of complicated words when in fact my house is not presently on fire. Only a sucker would leave town.
Amusingly you appear entirely unable to contest any of the points I made about current (not predicted) model capabilities.
Unable to contest? The models do what they do. There is no sign of any LLM based system as a drop-in replacement for people. The capability of this technology is a matter of fact, not opinion. Their supposed future capabilities is a matter of opinion and we can clearly not convince each other to change either position.
What does it matter what I say? You already showed bad faith in equating skepticism towards LLM as a path to "AGI" to refusing to acknowledge severe weather warnings. You're trying to drag this into some contest of egos.
It is still a matter of a novel technology that has some uses, is being feared as well as hyped as the harbinger of some computer genie, and the fact that I don't think it is and you do has no solution.
I mean. What is your point? Besides throwing mud at me, what would you have me do about it if you think that there it amounts to stupidity to doubt that LLMs can somehow become anything more than a statistical model of text that can be used to put out mediocre software, corporate copy, and expose the fact that bloated web apps built on dynamically typed languages can be cracked open by Kali linux boxes and simulated script kiddies?
Oh good, so they can't produce images or do graphic design work. Thus it follows that movies being sequences of images are obviously completely safe. And since they can't synthesize sounds obviously things like voice acting, call center jobs, and certainly music production are entirely off the table. And it sure is a good thing they can't accept video and audio streams as input because otherwise we might need to worry about their application to robotics and all the trade jobs that could eventually be automated as a result. But those are 100% immune thanks to the aforementioned limitations. Yeah. Definitely. /s
> LLM based 'agents' will (1) be on par with a human using a computer
They are already substantially more capable when it comes to writing exploits and decompiling binaries than the vast majority of professionals. Sure a lot of that is raw persistence as opposed to novel reasoning but when it comes to employment prospects the "how" doesn't matter only the "what".
> disruptively displace the workforce, well that's just not what we're seeing
You would deny that we fast approach a cliff on the basis that we are not yet in free fall? Surely you see how absurd that is?