> even with Fable, I've been at the point personally where I am reasonably confident that there's essentially nothing that I am better than Fable at despite generally being substantively above average on human benchmarks
If I asked you to write fiction, you'd be much better at keeping track of which characters knew which facts.
Why on Earth would anyone take anything this man said to be informative about anything, other than what he thinks will currently sound best that minute to the current Zeitgeist that day?
The safety teams are trivial expenses for them. They fire the safety team because explicit failure makes them look bad, or because the safety team doesn't go along with a party line and gets labeled disloyal.
There's intrinsic limits to vanilla transformer stacks. Nobody knows where they are. We don't know how unvanilla Opus 4.6 or GPT 5.3 are. We don't know what's in development or which new ideas will pan out. But it will still probably be called an "LLM".
Every time somebody writes an article like this without any dates and without saying which model they used, my guess is that they've simply failed to internalize the idea that "AI" is a moving target; nor understood that they saw a capability level from a fleeting moment of time, rather than an Eternal Verity about the Forever Limits of AI.
It would not surprise me at all for bb7 to exceed Graham's number. Just a Kirby-Paris hydra or a Goodstein sequence gets you to epsilon zero in the fast-growing hierarchy, where Graham is around omega+2.
Thanks to OpenAI for voluntarily sharing these important and valuable statistics. I think these ought to be mandatory government statistics, but until they are or it becomes an industry standard, I will not criticize the first company to helpfully share them, on the basis of what they shared. Incentives.
I have tried to tell my legions of fanatic brainwashed adherents exactly this, and they have refused to listen to me because the wrong way is more fun for them.
Doubling the productivity of 20% of workers, in cases where a lower price doesn't increase demand, can shift prices in the whole system as unemployed artists compete with other artists for wages. AI won't take your job, someone else unemployed by AI will take your job. (NGDPLT partially solves this but that's a higher competence level than civilization has.)
Translators? Graphic artists? The omission of the most obviously impacted professions immediately identifies this as a cooked study, along with talking about LLMs as "chatbots". I wonder who paid for it.
And if it isn't already false it will be false in 6 months, or 1.5 years on the outside. AI is a moving target, and the oldest people among you might remember a time in the 1750s when it didn't talk to you about code at all.
Hadn't seen that before, and despite being bog-standard Bostrom it's still more of an attempt to hold a theory than I'd seen associated with him before. Note nonoverlap of writing style and theory with the present post.
I wonder who wrote this? Doesn't sound like Altman's voice.
I wonder who theorized this? Altman isn't known for having models about AGI.
To the actual theorist: Claiming in one paragraph that AI goes as log resources, and in the next paragraph that the resource costs drop by 10x per year, is a contradiction; the latter paragraph shows a dependence on algorithms that is nothing like "it's just the compute silly".
This seems like decent alignment-positive work on a glance, though I haven't checked full details yet. I probably can't make it happen, but how much would someone need to pay you to make up your time, expense, and risk?
This is not how nonprofits usually work. This is blatant fraud. I cannot think of any other case besides OpenAI of this particular shenanigan being pulled.
We're not there yet, and the future is famously hard to predict; but it sure feels like you drew a straight line and time continued to move along that straight line even if it's not quite at that destination yet.