I think that this specific blog post is an important one for history.

The stunned responses indicate a set of some of humanity's brightest struggling to comprehend the emergence of such an incomprehensibly creative and powerful intelligence.

AI has come for coding.

AI has come for mathematics.

AI will come for everything else if we don't do something NOW.

I don't really understand these takes if we speak of the long-term. You're speaking of a world where there'd be widespread access to high quality cognitive work for a price approaching $0. The possibilities this would open are endless. We need to ensure that we don't neglect our own personal development, and fall into the sci-fi trope of an ignorant civilization relying on an machine built by their ancestors, but I don't think that's much of a practical concern.

In the short-run I think concern is much more merited because it will obviously cause some instability as the economy settles into a new equilibrium, but that's always the case with any sort of revolutionary technology. And this would almost certainly just be short-term stuff. As the value of one thing goes down, the value of other things would go up, and new things would emerge.

AI has to come for politicians, CEOs, executive leadership and management in all kinds of organizations first.

We can find a robot that will play golf instead of CEOs.

AI can generate keynotes and meet with other AI agents, pat itself on the back for success stories and give itself promotions and empire building.

"a set of some of humanity's brightest struggling to comprehend the emergence of such an incomprehensibly creative and powerful intelligence"

Where do you get this from? There is exactly one comment that even mentions creativity, and none of them speak about intelligence. All seem to agree it's slop.

> To be fair, my first reaction was almost boredom. Yes, the AI has “proved” (really? Are we sure? Can we even understand what is written there?) a bunch of interesting results in my field. Not even a Millennium Problem. Pff. [..] If a paper or thesis is so badly written that I cannot get past the first page without considerable effort, I reject it and ask for a new, readable version. With these AI-generated papers, I feel that we, as a community, are not applying the same standards of quality and rigour. They can simply release multiple 100+ page papers claiming to have solved this or that problem, often with redundant arguments, unclear logical structure, multiple dead ends, and strange or unsettling terminology — in other words, slop.

> if we don't do something NOW

We are doing something now. We're making it so the AI does it all better, so we don't have to do it anymore. Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet, but it's going to be a delicious fucking omelet when it's ready. I don't understand why people are pushing back so hard on making the world a better place. I personally can't wait until it's clankers all the way down.

why assume that because LLMs are strong in a narrow set of fields it will be strong in everything? we don't make that assumption about other forms of intelligence. i.e nobody thinks Stockfish is good at product management, and people generally don't think that a genius composer will be equally good at botany.