I think the most compelling arguments are:

LLMs aren’t AI. These are language processing tools which are highly effective and it turns out language is a large component of intelligence but they aren’t AI alone.

Intelligence isn’t the solution or bottleneck to solving the world’s most pressing problems. Famines are political. We know how to deploy clean energy.

Now that doesn’t quite answer your question but I think it says two things. First that the time horizon to real AI is still way longer than sama is currently considering. Second that AI won’t be as useful as many believe.

▲

keiferski a day ago | parent [-]

Right, but if you just replace AI with LLM in my comment, I'm not sure it really changes. "Real AI" might not be necessary to the two things I wrote.

I agree that all of the predictions regarding AI are probably overblown if they're just LLMs. But that might not matter if we're just talking about geopolitics.

	▲	roxolotl a day ago \| parent [-]
		Yea that’s fair. And if there’s enough money behind something even if it’s not great it can still bend the whole world. I think with a lot of comments like yours people take them, at least I did, to be more slanted to actually be saying something like “what’s the argument against AI 2027”. Which isn’t fair and is why the hype can be so damaging to honest discourse. So I cannot think of a good argument of a reason this isn’t going to change the world even if that does look more like the AI as a normal technology[0] argument or simply a slopapolocypse. 0: https://knightcolumbia.org/content/ai-as-normal-technology