It's funny, I don't know if I see a use for it, and this feeling surprises me. Just as procedural maps bore me, I feel this will be similar in any use case I can think of. What I like is the perceived care behind every action. After the initial "wow" of the care put into that research, I don't think it will end up being a "wow" that scales—I don't know if I'm making myself clear.
When the printing press was invented, people didn’t start creating best-selling hits.
Humans have always taken it upon ourselves to define what we consider success. Cheap things will always remain cheap…
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.
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.”
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 :)
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.
A documentary, source-based overview of Trump’s campaign for the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, fact-check of his “ending wars” claims, analysis of his public announcements, actions, legal situation and the winner (Maria Corina Machado). Every claim is verified with links to Reuters, BBC, Human Rights Watch, AP, Yale and other independent organizations.