| few people would have predicted that the real wall in LLMs would end up being humans' capacity to verify the output

That was the dominant concern in the circles I’m in, so it’s worrisome it’s being treated as rare.

I would question the narrative that humans lack the capacity to verify the output and would instead argue the people lack the incentive to verify the output.

The response of many mathematicians to the recent dump is a good example: verifying these proofs amounts to unpaid labour for OpenAI and wastes time that could be spent doing publishable work which ultimately results in money or personal success. The slop factor also compounds the work required to verify the output considerably.

For mathematicians, programmers or anyone, if the work required to deal with slop passes the limit, it is no longer in their own self interest to use LLMs. The expectation that people will use LLMs for the betterment of humanity against their own financial interest is baffling.

Humans are not immortal and cannot spend all their time into review (especially unpaid). Even today, there’s so much knowledge around that you have to be specialist of a narrow domain to get to the frontier. Even in computing which is just approaching a century of existence.