> Salvatore is right about the fact that we have not seen the full story yet, LLMs are stalling/plateauing but active research is already ongoing to find different architectures and models.

They will need to be so different that any talk implying current LLMs eventually replaced humans will be like saying trees eventually replaced horses because the first cars were wooden.

> And I think the effort here can be compared in scale to the Manhattan or Apollo projects, but there is also the potential for a huge backlash to the hype that was built up and created what is arguably a bubble, so this is a race against the clock.

It's not useful to blindly compare scale. We're not approaching AI like the Manhattan or Apollo projects, we're approaching this like we did crypto, and ads, and other tech.

That's not to say nothing useful will come out of it, I think very amazing things will come out of it and already have... but none of them will resemble mass replacement of skilled workers.

We're already so focused on productization and typical tech distractions that this is nothing like those efforts.

(In fact thinking a bit more, I'd say this is like the Space Shuttle. We didn't try to make the best spacecraft for scientific exploration and hope later on it'd be profitable in other ways... instead we immediately saddled it with serving what the Air Force/DoD wanted and ended up doing everything worse.)

> I also think he is wrong about the markets reaction, markets are inherently good integrators and bad predictors, we should not expect to learn anything about the future by looking at stocks movements.

I agree, so it's wrong about the over half of punchline too.

>> mass replacement of skilled workers

unless you consider people who write clickbait blogs to be skilled workers, in which case the damage is already done.