"The internet could bear out, but it seems a lot of hype to me" --Many, many people in 1997.

Honestly I don't know how you formed this particular opinion (if it's even your own and not a false consensus of other peoples thoughts). I cannot see any future without LLMs unless replaced by something smarter, cheaper, and faster. That's because it's already bearing out. I can talk to a computer and the computer can solve problems based on words alone. I'm old enough this is pure science fiction. If I could send one of these machines back to that past for people to interact with, there are those that would scream and pass out in terror. They would absolutely tell you that we created the monster we should never create.

If you're trying to compare symbolic AI of the past to what we have now, you're not even on the same field, you're playing a completely different game.

From a neuroscience perspective, LLMs are effectively brains. We have built brains. That's quite a leap from first-order logic engines like Prolog.

The crisis is from what it has already borne out (navier stokes + proof dump). Potential continuing improvements at anything approaching the rate of improvement they already are showing is layers of crisis on top of that.

Wasn't alive then, but there's very obviously a difference between hype of Prolog, and hype of what is verging on AGI. Come on now.

There was more progress on open problems in mathematics in the last six months (because of AI) than in the previous decade.

AI has already born out at this point. The question is no longer it's future capabilities but the impact of its present capabilities - though with its present capabilities, someone is now going to be pushing for more, at least as long present computer tech is widely available.

Does anyone remember how that AI solved Fermat's Last Theorem?

[flagged]