Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but I think we're mixing two distinct debates.

Today we have an extraordinary invention—comparable to the wheel in its time. That invention is: predictive inference over all human knowledge. Period. I don't like calling it "Artificial Intelligence" because it's not intelligence; it's a prediction system that can project responses by illuminating patterns across all human knowledge encapsulated in text, audio, and video. What companies like OpenAI call "reasoning" models is simply that predictive process, but in a loop packaged as a product—one of the first marvelous uses of this fascinating invention: predictive inference over all human knowledge.

When the wheel was invented, no one could have imagined that, combined with hundreds of subsequent technologies, it would enable an electric car powered by solar energy. The wheel wasn't autonomous transportation—it was a fundamental component.

I see two debates getting mixed up here:

- The debate about the current invention: A tool that makes encyclopedias "speak" by connecting patterns across all human knowledge. As a tool, that's what it is—nothing more, nothing less. Tremendously useful, but a tool.

- The debate about the future dream: What this invention might enable when combined with hundreds of technologies that don't yet exist—similar to imagining an electric car when you only have the wheel.

It seems many experts are taking positions and getting "upset" because they're mixing these two debates. Some evaluate the wheel as if it should already be a solar electric car. Others defend the wheel by saying it already IS a solar electric car. Both are right in their observations, but they're talking about different things.

LLMs are a fundamental breakthrough—the "wheel" of the information age. But discussing whether they "understand" or have "world models" is like asking whether the wheel "comprehends transportation."

On the danger of confusing capabilities: Conflating the tool with the end goal leads us to poor decisions—from over-investment to under-utilization. When we expect AGI from what is fundamentally a pattern-matching engine, we set ourselves up for disappointment and misallocation of resources. No magic, just reality.

The temporal factor: The AGI debate is a debate about the future—about what might emerge from combinations of technologies we haven't yet invented.

▲

jstummbillig 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> I don't like calling it "Artificial Intelligence" because it's not intelligence

A pattern I noticed in a AI[sic] discussions: Handwavily declaring what intelligence is not, while not explaining what is.

	▲	foofoo12 19 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Handwavily declaring what intelligence is not, while not explaining what is. That goes in the other direction too. Declaring it intelligent without explaining what it is. Or even worse, if any explanations are offered, they are often half truths or exaggerated.
	▲	willyxdjazz 20 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		You are right, I thought maybe something interesting in these debates is more education about how an LLM works. I don’t like calling it artificial intelligence because precisely we don’t understand well what “intelligence” is. What we do understand is how we came to build an LLM. Good point, I will keep that in mind for next time; it’s better to give more details and, above all, remove the “no” from assertions and clarify more. Thanks :)
	▲	20 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

whiplash451 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Very good point. With one caveat, though. Even though I was not there, I imagine that debates about the wheel were less heated than those we’re having about AI. I think this is because the latter is much more abstract, too close from our own consciousness etc. Wheels never challenged our place in the universe.

	▲	willyxdjazz 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Totally agree with you. It makes me think that the wheel is a tool—technologically simple yet incredibly powerful—that helps humans overcome their limitations. Similarly, predictive inference is also a tool that extends our cognitive capacity by connecting all human knowledge. This tool is built upon other tools, all designed with the fundamental purpose of facilitating and empowering humans. The refinement of these aids is such that sometimes it evokes a mix of awe and a certain unease, due to how closely and powerfully these tools can influence our world and decisions. It is natural for such intensity to generate suspicion because the assistance becomes extremely sophisticated and gives the illusion of something “intelligent.”

▲

rhetocj23 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think this comparison is all wrong. The internet is more closer to the notion of a wheel - the internet has done amazing stuff just as the wheel has and nobody foresaw the impact the internet would have and how the underlying technologies that power it have evolved.

Just like how a wheel moves stuff, the internet is the medium through which bits are transmitted and received.

	▲	willyxdjazz 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks for your view! My analogy was intentional—I wanted to talk about revolutionary tools that extend human capabilities, not about the foundational infrastructure itself. Of course, the internet is a fundamental platform like the wheel, but I’m focusing on what’s built on top of that—how new tools like predictive inference change the landscape again. Analogies can work at different layers. I just chose the tool, not the medium.