Of the things that the author states as generally agreed upon there is significant debate. I'm not even sure how much of it is considered as a prevalent opinion.
Of the Gell-Mann issue at the end, I have never encountered such a statement, I don't doubt that it has happened here and there, but without supporting evidence to say this is a common occurrence, why bring it up in this manner.
It seems the real intent of this post is to signal that the author does not like AI.
I think there could have been a sensible informative article written about Gell-Mann amnesia warning how it also applies to AI output and suggesting people calibrate their expectations based upon the error rate in fields that they know well.
Comments
This seems to be the flimsiest of straw men.
Of the things that the author states as generally agreed upon there is significant debate. I'm not even sure how much of it is considered as a prevalent opinion.
Of the Gell-Mann issue at the end, I have never encountered such a statement, I don't doubt that it has happened here and there, but without supporting evidence to say this is a common occurrence, why bring it up in this manner.
It seems the real intent of this post is to signal that the author does not like AI.
I think there could have been a sensible informative article written about Gell-Mann amnesia warning how it also applies to AI output and suggesting people calibrate their expectations based upon the error rate in fields that they know well.