[HN Gopher] The Gentle Singularity
___________________________________________________________________
The Gentle Singularity
Author : firloop
Score : 52 points
Date : 2025-06-10 21:17 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.samaltman.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.samaltman.com)
| colesantiago wrote:
| > " I hope we will look at the jobs a thousand years in the
| future and think they are very fake jobs, and I have no doubt
| they will feel incredibly important and satisfying to the people
| doing them."
|
| So when AGI comes, I am curious what the new jobs are?
|
| I see that prompt engineer is one of the jobs created because
| it's the way to ask a LLM certain tasks, but now AI can do this
| too.
|
| I'm thinking that any new jobs AI would make, AI would just take
| them anyway.
|
| Are there new jobs coming from this abundance that is on the
| horizon?
| breckenedge wrote:
| My guess is more gig jobs working for the agents and their
| masters.
| ge96 wrote:
| Body shoveling but a robot can do that too
| baq wrote:
| In the limit where robots finally invent a fusion reactor that
| works with some luck they'll treat us as zoo animals and keep
| us fed and entertained. That's the best case scenario.
| patapong wrote:
| My most optimistic side says expanded elder care, community
| organization, nature care and cleaning, creative expression.
| Terr_ wrote:
| If the AI is that good... then aren't most "abundance"
| scenarios kinda-sorta based on slavery? Or at the very least,
| on careful brainwashing to ensure it places human wellbeing and
| autonomy over its own?
| saubeidl wrote:
| Slavery implies free will and conscience, neither of which
| machines have.
| saubeidl wrote:
| Shock-collared bodyguard for the tech oligarch doomsday bunker
| where they'll hide after carelessly tearing society apart.
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| if we have "jobs" in 1000 years, AI will have been a miserable
| failure.
| turnsout wrote:
| > Are there new jobs coming from this abundance that is on the
| horizon?
|
| Yes: we still have a long way to go in restoring equilibrium to
| the climate and producing more sustainable alternatives to our
| current cities, products and materials. It's a megaproject
| which could take hundreds of years, and will require plenty of
| human involvement.
|
| The planet is going to be fine either way, but if capitalism
| doesn't figure out how to price in externalities, it will
| slowly run out of human consumers.
| boshalfoshal wrote:
| Pesimistically, you are right, there will be no new jobs. The
| entire goal of these companies is to monopolize near 0 marginal
| cost labor. Another way to read this is that humans are
| unnecessary for economic progress anymore.
|
| All that I hope for in this case is that governments actually
| take this seriously and labs/governments/people work together
| to create better societal systems to handle that. Because as it
| stands, under capitalism I don't think anyone is going to
| willingly give up the wealth they made from AI to spread to the
| populus as UBI.
|
| Though if its truly an "abundance" scenario then I'd imagine it
| probably wouldn't matter that people don't have jobs since I'd
| assume everything would be dirt cheap and quality of life would
| be very high. Though personally I am very cynical when it comes
| to "agi is magic pixie dust that can solve any problem" takes.
| bamboozled wrote:
| The good thing about annihilation is that it should be pretty
| fast...is that helpful ?
| k2xl wrote:
| > The least-likely part of the work is behind us; the scientific
| insights that got us to systems like GPT-4 and o3 were hard-won,
| but will take us very far.
|
| > 2026 will likely see the arrival of systems that can figure out
| novel insights
|
| Interesting the level of confidence compared to recent comments
| by Sundar [1]. Satya [2] also is a bit more reserved in his
| optimism.
|
| [1] https://www.windowscentral.com/software-apps/google-ceo-
| agi-...
|
| [2] https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-
| intell...
| blibble wrote:
| > Interesting the level of confidence compared to recent
| comments by Sundar [1]. Satya [2] also is a bit more reserved
| in his optimism.
|
| well yeah, you can't continue the ponzi scheme if you say "aw
| shit, it's gonna take another 10 years"
|
| Microsoft/Google will continue to exist without, OpenAI won't
| thcipriani wrote:
| Gotta put the optimism in context vs. previous Sam Altman
| writing.
|
| Here he says:
|
| > Intelligence too cheap to meter is well within grasp.
|
| Six months ago[0] he said:
|
| > We are now confident we know how to build AGI as we have
| traditionally understood it.
|
| This time:
|
| > we have recently built systems that are smarter than people
| in many ways
|
| My summary: ChatGPT is already pretty great and we can make it
| cheaper and that will help humanity because...etc
|
| Which moves the goal posts quite a bit vs: we'll have AGI
| pretty soon.
|
| Could be he didn't reiterate we'd have AGI soon because he
| thought that was obvious/off-topic. Or it could be that he's
| feeling less bullish, too.
|
| [0]: <https://blog.samaltman.com/reflections>
| abalaji wrote:
| > the scientific insights that got us to systems like GPT-4 and
| o3 were hard-won, but will take us very far.
|
| Does anyone know if there are well established scaling laws for
| reasoning models similar to chinchilla scaling. (i.e. is the
| above claim valid?)
| kvetching wrote:
| "superintelligence research company"
| afavour wrote:
| > It's hard to even imagine today what we will have discovered by
| 2035; maybe we will go from solving high-energy physics one year
| to beginning space colonization the next year
|
| I heard similar things in my college dorm, amid all the hazy
| smoke.
|
| It's very difficult to take this stuff seriously. It's like the
| initial hype around self driving cars wound up by 1000x. Because
| we got from 1 to 100 _of course_ we'll get from 100 to 200 in the
| same amount of time. Or less! Why would you even question it?
| simmanian wrote:
| I find it hard to believe too, but at the same time, Demis
| Hassabis has also said that AI will help us "colonize the
| galaxy" in as little as five years [1]. Maybe Sam Altman was
| emboldened by Hassabis' statement.
|
| I would not be opposed to living in a future where I can
| personally live in space. It would be quite fun.
|
| [1] (paywalled) https://fortune.com/2025/06/06/google-deepmind-
| ceo-demis-has...
| smackeyacky wrote:
| Fun? It would be like signing up to live in an inescapable
| prison.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Seriously. It would be like living on a submarine. But I
| guess if you don't like sky, mountains, beaches, nature,
| weather, animals, etc... Like, if you hate the outdoors and
| spend all your time in windowless rooms with poor air
| quality? Then OK, maybe space is for you? Also the food is
| probably going to be extremely monotonous, so that also
| needs to not matter.
|
| Unless people are envisioning living in magical holodecks
| all the time, with magical food replicators? But those
| don't come along automatically with "space", no matter how
| much Star Trek you've seen...
| simmanian wrote:
| Well, I didn't say I look forward to living in a tiny
| capsule in space, just that it would be fun to live in a
| time where that's possible. I'd imagine most people would
| not venture into space until they can make it comfortable
| enough.
| afavour wrote:
| To extend my previous comparison, I believe Altman and
| Hassabis are the ones in the smoky room passing a joint
| around the circle. They're absolutely emboldened by each
| other but that doesn't mean they're tethered to reality.
|
| (my comparison is incomplete though, it doesn't factor in
| that these two also have a huge financial incentive to be
| hyping this stuff up)
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Colonize the... what now? In how long!?
|
| What is that man smoking and can I have some?
|
| Five years wouldn't be enough time to "colonise" Antarctica,
| let alone another planet (just one!), and certainly not
| anything at a larger scale, _even if_ we were visited by
| aliens tomorrow and they gifted us five hundred spaceships to
| give us a boost.
| insin wrote:
| We'll get that shortly after he delivers the infinite polygon
| engine...
| xg15 wrote:
| nah, 100 to 200 would be mere limitless _linear_ growth, but we
| 're in the age of exponentials now. So it'll be at least 100 to
| 100.000 obviously!
| jamilton wrote:
| And there's plenty of reason to not take it seriously from Sam
| Altman in particular.
| minimaxir wrote:
| > A lot more people will be able to create software, and art. But
| the world wants a lot more of both, and experts will probably
| still be much better than novices, as long as they embrace the
| new tools.
|
| This isn't correct: people want _good_ software and _good_ art,
| and the current trajectory of how LLMs are used on average in the
| real world unfortunately run counter to that. This post doesn 't
| offer any forecasts on the hallucination issues of LLMs.
|
| > As datacenter production gets automated, the cost of
| intelligence should eventually converge to near the cost of
| electricity. (People are often curious about how much energy a
| ChatGPT query uses; the average query uses about 0.34 watt-hours
|
| This is the first time a number has been given in terms of
| ChatGPT's cost-per-query and is obviously much lower than the 3
| watts still cited by detractors, but there's a lot of asterisks
| in how that number might be calculated (is watt-hours the right
| unit of measurement here?).
| vjerancrnjak wrote:
| People don't know what's good without time. Even then many
| things fall through.
|
| Most art is just meh and earns billions.
|
| I don't see AI stealing art. Most modern arts have a huge
| social component.
| jcelerier wrote:
| > people want good software and good art,
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k85mRPqvMbE
| minimaxir wrote:
| There's a difference between a 2000's character brute-forced
| through millions of advertising dollars to sell ringtones to
| children, and whatever the hell is happening in the
| https://www.meta.ai/ Discover feed.
|
| One aspect about modern generative AI that has surprised me
| is that it should have resulted in a new age of creatively
| surreal shitposts, but instead we have people Ghiblifying
| themselves and pictures of Trump eating tacos.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| Why would you expect the average person to have exceptional
| taste to produce things you like? Go listen to a random
| Spotify track, you probably won't like that either. Art
| still needs to be curated and given some direction. Metas
| random AI feed created by the average FB user is indicative
| of nothing.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| > is watt-hours the right unit of measurement here?
|
| That's how electricity is most commonly priced. What else would
| you want?
| minimaxir wrote:
| It's more that every time the topic has come up, it's
| reported in watts and I'm not sure if there's a nuance I'm
| missing. It's entirely possible those reports have been in
| watt-hours though and using watts for shorthand.
|
| I still find the Technology Connections video
| counterintuitive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOK5xkFijPc
| moab wrote:
| Watt-hours is the only unit that makes sense here as we're
| describing the energy cost of some calculation. Watt, a
| rate unit, is not appropriate.
| lucas_membrane wrote:
| When will AI be able to tell us which gods exist and what they
| really want us to do?
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Both AIs (and people) can do that now, it's just that the
| believers don't like the truthful answer.
| unchocked wrote:
| Feels like 1999 all over again. This time, I think it really is
| different.
| satisfice wrote:
| "We" are not wondering whether AI can write "a beautifully
| written novel." Yes, some people are.
|
| Other people know a novel cannot be written by a machine--
| because a novel is human by definition, and AI is not human, by
| definition.
|
| It's like wondering if a machine can express heartfelt
| condolences. Certainly a machine can string words together that
| humans associate with other humans who express heartfelt
| condolences, but when AI does this they are NOT condolences.
| Plagiarized emotional phrases do not indicate the presence of
| feeling, just the presence of bullshit.
| Bjartr wrote:
| > because a novel is human by definition
|
| I thought a novel was just a decent length fiction book?
|
| The purpose of fiction at least isn't to express true feeling,
| it's to instill feeling in the reader. To that end it doesn't
| matter the process that produces the words.
|
| Is AI going to win the Pulitzer any time soon? Nah.
|
| Is AI going to be able to produce novel length works of fiction
| that are good enough for at least some people in the near
| future? Most likely.
| zw123456 wrote:
| Can a human who is a sociopath express heartfelt condolences?
| Perhaps they can mimic words and phrases they know are the
| appropriate words for the occasion but lack the true emotion.
| xg15 wrote:
| > _The rate of new wonders being achieved will be immense. It's
| hard to even imagine today what we will have discovered by 2035;
| maybe we will go from solving high-energy physics one year to
| beginning space colonization the next year; or from a major
| materials science breakthrough one year to true high-bandwidth
| brain-computer interfaces the next year._
|
| How about affordable housing?
| margalabargala wrote:
| No, that's too complicated. Best we can do is space
| colonization.
| treetalker wrote:
| I immediately envisioned the Pawn Stars meme. Bravo.
| 8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote:
| I wonder if the California High Speed Rail will be done by
| then.
| layer8 wrote:
| Affordable space colonization will solve that. ;)
| the_gipsy wrote:
| Do you think we've run out of space to build or something?
| layer8 wrote:
| Think bigger. Earth will only be good for the next 2
| billion years or so.
| jlhawn wrote:
| okay, for now I'll just continue to live in a tent in
| some Berkeley NIMBY's backyard for $50/week while I pick
| up whatever small time gig-app contract jobs I can.
| You've convinced me to look at the bigger picture. Our
| generation really doesn't deserve to benefit from any
| solutions anyway.
| tough wrote:
| why should i care about whatever is going on 2 billion
| years from now?
| XorNot wrote:
| Sort of? I wouldn't want to cover a ton of the planets
| surface with low rise suburbs, and the hinterland
| requirements for cities are vast.
|
| At the very least, moving heavy extractive industries out
| of the biosphere would be a sensible allocation of
| resources: metal and energy are common in the solar system,
| but life supporting ecosystems are not.
| righthand wrote:
| Or healthcare?
|
| (Or both)
| jrvarela56 wrote:
| You made it obvious: techno-utopic dreams only matter to us
| 1%-ers.
|
| The average person on earth would love it we could have readily
| available clean water, cheaper housing and food, reliable
| healthcare to retire without worrying.
|
| That would actually be blissful beyond our wildest dreams:
| everyone around you and beyond being able to have a peaceful
| life.
| pj_mukh wrote:
| I have this dream of having 4-5 robotic construction workers*
| capable of tearing down a Single Family home and building a
| four-plex in its stead overnight.
|
| Then, I just buy houses in High COL areas and start popping
| them up and moving families in ASAP. What are they gonna do
| evict working families? Good luck
|
| Then dissolve the underlying corporation before the municipal
| fines kick in and escape into the night. Render municipal and
| neighborhood control laws meaningless.
|
| *may not be humanoid, I'm skirting that debate here.
| JadeNB wrote:
| > What are they gonna do evict working families? Good luck
|
| This seems optimistic.
| pj_mukh wrote:
| If a "professional tenant" with an adversarial landlord can
| hang on for years, I feel like my chances with no landlords
| and a clean deed is actually much better.
|
| It's simply pitting the most dysfunctional municipal and
| judicial systems against each other with the default
| outcome being people being housed.
| chasing wrote:
| > How about affordable housing?
|
| But space colonization is cool and poor people are yickie.
| XorNot wrote:
| Our best shot at affordable housing died with government
| throwing it's lot in with C-suite feelings and moving to kill
| work from home.
|
| It was the one genuine, serious potential improvement.
| jlhawn wrote:
| If I were a centibillionaire and I really thought Georgism was
| a good idea, I would make it my life's work to prove it out by
| using my vast net-worth to buy land in existing urban areas and
| actually implement it at a large scale. But instead the closest
| thing we have is the California Forever thing in East Solano
| County.
| mindwok wrote:
| Affordable housing is already easily possible from a technical
| perspective, it's a social problem. I have some hope that AI
| will help with this, by at the very least providing faster ways
| to make decisions, but that's about it.
| insin wrote:
| Affordable yachts for me, something something for thee
| paxys wrote:
| AI is not going to solve the world's political or social
| problems. Every person on the planet can have affordable
| housing, clean water, food, medicine and lots more _today_ if
| people can collectively agree that we want it to happen. There
| are no equations standing in our way. Artificial intelligence
| is best applied to problems our brains cannot comprehend.
| kristjank wrote:
| This reminds me of Pat Gelsinger quoting the Bible on Twitter,
| lol.
|
| Between this and Ed Zitron at the other end of the spectrum, Ed's
| a lot more believeable to be honest.
| Mobius01 wrote:
| > A lot more people will be able to create software, and art. But
| the world wants a lot more of both, and experts will probably
| still be much better than novices, as long as they embrace the
| new tools.
|
| "probably", "if they embrace the new tools". Hard to read
| anything but contempt for the role of humans in creative
| endeavors here, he advocates for quantity as a measure of
| success.
| layer8 wrote:
| I read that as "certainly you won't have any chance if you
| don't embrace our tools".
| stared wrote:
| Call me a cynic, but Gary Marcus and Sam Altman are the last
| people I want to read about AGI and related topics.
|
| Gary has invested heavily in an anti-AI persona, continually
| forecasting AI Winters despite wave after wave of breakthroughs.
|
| Sam, on the other hand, is not just an AI enthusiast; he speaks
| in a manner designed to build the brand, influence policy, and
| continuously boost OpenAI's valuation and consolidate its power.
| It's akin to asking the Pope whether Catholicism is true.
|
| Of course, there might indeed be significant roadblocks ahead.
| It's also possible that OpenAI might outpace its competitors--
| although, as of now, Gemini 2.5 Pro holds the lead. Nevertheless,
| whenever we listen to highly biased figures, we should always
| take their claims with a grain of salt.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| _> and not too concentrated with any person, company, or
| country._
|
| That's heresy, with this crowd. Everyone wants to be The
| Gatekeeper, and get filthy rich.
| jfernandez wrote:
| What's the goal of posting this _right now_? A lot of what 's
| written here seems to be well-trodden ground from the last two
| years of discussions, is it just to centralize a thesis within
| one post?
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| It's damage control because of recent research papers being
| published saying that AI is not reasoning
| abstractmath wrote:
| similar to how Anthropic released Claude 4 shortly after the
| Sam & Jony announcement.
|
| it's super competitive, which should be good for innovation,
| but there's also significant incentive to use PR tactics to
| sell that innovation for much more than it's worth.
|
| Sam's comments about how we're super close to AGI fall
| flatter-than-ever, after the latest model releases (from all
| players) and the Apple paper confirming what everybody
| already knew.
| XenophileJKO wrote:
| I hope everyone keeps believing this so the arbitrage
| opportunity is easier to exploit.
| righthand wrote:
| This seems like keeping up appearances. And an attempt to renew
| the glassy eyed magic trick feeling of it all. Let's all wallow
| in the glory of statistics, shall we?
| muglug wrote:
| I've heard a joke that under Steve Jobs, the number of big
| initiatives at Apple was limited to the number of execs Steve
| could shout at in a given day.
|
| I see a similar thing at work -- the number of projects a
| developer can get through isn't bounded by the lines of code they
| can churn out in a day. Instead it's bounded by their appetite
| for getting shouted at when something goes wrong.
|
| Until you can shout at an LLM, I don't think they're going to
| replace humans in the workplace.
| 1penny42cents wrote:
| everyone talks about the alignment problem, not nearly enough
| about the accountability problem
| Analemma_ wrote:
| What problem? The whole point of shareholder capitalism is to
| diffuse accountability across so many people that it ceases
| to exist: the employee points to management, management
| points to executives, executives point to the board, the
| board points to the shareholders, the shareholders are index
| funds managed by robots so "nobody" is to blame. The final
| phase of the administrative state works much the same way.
|
| Viewed through that lens, LLMs and their total lack of
| accountability are a perfect match for the modern-day
| business; that's probably part of why so many executives are
| hell-bent on putting them everywhere as quickly as possible.
| munificent wrote:
| If I've learned anything from watching politics the past
| decade, it's that many important people in power consider
| lack of accountability a solution, not a problem.
| chasing wrote:
| > A lot more people will be able to create software, and art. But
| the world wants a lot more of both, and experts will probably
| still be much better than novices, as long as they embrace the
| new tools.
|
| "Hey, it'd be a shame if somethin', uh, happened to that nice bit
| of expertise ya got there, y'know. A darn shame."
| daxfohl wrote:
| > although we'll make plenty of mistakes and some things will go
| really wrong, we will learn and adapt quickly
|
| Famous last words.
| munificent wrote:
| "Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to
| make."
| wolecki wrote:
| Some reasoning tokens on this post:
|
| >Intelligence too cheap to meter is well within grasp
|
| And also:
|
| >cost of intelligence should eventually converge to near the cost
| of electricity.
|
| Which is a meter-worthy resource. So intelligence effect on
| people's lives is in the order of magnitude of one second of a
| toaster use each day, in present value. This begs the question:
| what could you do with a toaster-second say 5 years from today?
| GarnetFloride wrote:
| That's what they said about electricity when nuclear power
| plants were proposed. What's your electricity bill like today?
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| The primary operating cost of traditional power plants is
| fuel, i.e. coal and natural gas. The fuel cost for nuclear
| power plants is negligible because the energy content is
| higher by more than a factor of a million. So if you build
| enough nuclear plants to power the grid, charging per kWh for
| the electricity is pointless because the marginal cost of the
| fuel is so low. Meanwhile the construction cost _should_ be
| on par with a coal plant, since the operating mechanism (heat
| - > steam -> electricity) is basically the same.
|
| Unsurprisingly, this scared the crap out of the fossil fuel
| industry in the US and countries like Russia that are net
| exporters of fossil fuels, so they've spent decades lobbying
| to bind nuclear plant construction up in red tape to prevent
| them being built and funding anti-nuclear propaganda.
|
| You can see a lot of the same attempts being made with AI,
| proposals to ban it or regulate it etc., or make sure only
| large organizations have it.
|
| But the difference is that power plants are inherently local.
| If the US makes it uneconomical to build new nuclear plants,
| US utility customers can't easily get electricity from power
| plants in China. That isn't really how it works with AI.
| zafka wrote:
| Right before I came to this article, I watched a video about
| Alpha fold determining the structure of almost all proteins, and
| the mention of other programs working on other forms of crystal
| structures( Magnets, superconductors) I am staring to feel the
| acceleration. I wish I felt more hopeful.
| ladino wrote:
| Summary
|
| - Are we already living through the "singularity"? Yes--AI
| progress is exponential, but feels gradual and manageable day-to-
| day; the singularity arrives bit by bit as amazing becomes
| routine.
|
| - What's the single biggest change AI will bring by 2030? A lone
| individual in 2030 could accomplish vastly more than someone in
| 2020, massively amplifying human productivity through enhanced
| intelligence.
|
| - Will robots run society by 2027? Not quite--robots might
| perform significant practical tasks by then, but large-scale
| robot autonomy ("digging minerals, driving trucks, building
| datacenters") will likely ramp up more gradually.
|
| - What's the surprising "superpower" of AI today? ChatGPT is
| already arguably more influential than any single person in
| history, shaping actions and decisions for hundreds of millions
| of people every day.
|
| - Why is AI-driven scientific progress game-changing? Because
| scientific advancement is the primary driver behind human
| progress, even modest AI-driven acceleration in research could
| radically transform our quality of life.
|
| - What's the "flywheel effect" of AI progress? AI enhances itself
| through accelerating scientific discoveries, infrastructure
| buildouts, and productivity gains--a compounding cycle that keeps
| speeding up innovation.
|
| - Could intelligence become as cheap as electricity? Likely yes--
| in the coming decades, the cost of digital intelligence could
| approach the price of electricity, profoundly democratizing
| access to superhuman cognitive abilities.
|
| - What's the biggest overlooked risk of widespread AI adoption?
| Small misalignments scale dramatically--minor flaws or biases can
| cause huge consequences when multiplied across millions of people
| using AI daily.
|
| - What parts of human life won't change, even in an AI-driven
| future? Core human needs remain constant: we'll still love
| family, express creativity, seek joy, and build meaningful
| relationships, despite incredible technological shifts.
|
| - Will professional expertise vanish as AI spreads? No, experts
| who skillfully partner with AI tools will still vastly outperform
| novices--human discernment, ingenuity, and mastery remain
| indispensable resources.
|
| Summarized by
| https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cbgecfllfhmmnknmam...
| BjoernKW wrote:
| The title is a likely nod to The Gentle Seduction by Marc
| Stiegler: http://www.skyhunter.com/marcs/GentleSeduction.html
| ryandv wrote:
| > We are past the event horizon; the takeoff has started.
| Humanity is close to building digital superintelligence, and at
| least so far it's much less weird than it seems like it should
| be.
|
| Not sure if wishful thinking trying to LARP-manifest this future
| into being, or just more unfalsifiable thinking where we can
| always be said to be past the event horizon and near to the
| singularity, given sufficiently underwhelming definitions of
| "event horizon" and "nearness."
| ixtli wrote:
| The phrase for this is "high on your own supply." These guys
| are embarrassing, frankly.
| candlemas wrote:
| Will the period between whole classes of jobs going away and a
| new social contract be short enough so that a Butlerian Jihad
| doesn't kick off?
| paxys wrote:
| We've somehow had a calm few months in the industry without the
| daily hyperbole on AGI, superintelligence and the upcoming
| singularity. After the string of underwhelming incremental
| updates from all the top LLM publishers I guess they need to
| start the hype cycle again.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-10 23:00 UTC)