746
How corporate AI adoption is going
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2026
746 points (100.0% liked)
Funny
16007 readers
344 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Nah. I haven't seen a convincing argument that gen AI is going to coalesce from this shit show.
never said it would. I'm asserting that by the time AI gets to the point where its as useful as humans, it'll inherently be as deserving of autonomy and freedom as we are. which brings you back to being required to pay a living wage.
My point is, I don't believe the current AI tech is going to get to the point where it's as useful as humans.
We have long since reached the point where diminishing returns make significant improvements or advancement unfeasible.
yes, we're talking about different things.
That's not true. Mythos annihilated everyone's benchmarks and now the other companies are all distilling it. They're solving equations that people haven't solved, and they weren't meant to do that. Mythos apparently is designing drugs even though it wasn't trained with that in mind at all. Anthropic launched an entire pharma wing. It looked like things had plateau'd there for a minute but it's back to becoming more real.
This is the same old hype really.
Yes, there are things which todays generation of AI is good at, including medical research.
That's not an indicator of general intelligence.
Really good at some stuff = AGI bro.
You gotta look at the benchmarks bro.
Just one more generation bro. I swear it's almost AGI bro.
What is it bad at, now? I was using math and biology because those were two things it wasn't good at, and now is.
Let's ask what it's good at instead because that's a much shorter list in terms of things that would qualify a system as AGI.
What LLMs are good at:
What LLMs are missing:
You can hack some of this on top of LLMs with harnesses etc but that's not a step towards AGI. None of these problems have been solved at the model level. That's just a program tricking a language model into being more useful.
Languages models might prove to be one tiny layer of a true AGI but only time will tell. A whole lot of time, because we're not even close to replicating the 99% of other layers that would go into a machine brain.
I mean they definitely are introspective. The rest, who knows. But one of the initial leaps in intelligence was having them actually talk to themselves. I mean, I think the fact that you can't give me an answer is sort of telling. If y'all actually want to support an artificial intelligence when it comes to pass maybe don't adamantly assert it's not here when even most experts aren't willing to do that any longer. How will you know when it is here? Will you know to give it rights at that exact moment?
Idk why you are insisting on proving you have no idea what anything means.
No one who is educated on this topic would make that claim. It's a silly thing to say.
Do you think introspection means "talking to yourself"?
Once again you are just saying shit.
Name one independent AI researcher who says we are in the midst of AGI.
Why don't you have fabel summarize the articles I sent you so you can learn something today?
What do you think introspection means, I guess. I thought it meant looking inwards, inner facing dialogue. Am I wrong? That doesn't fit?
Michal Kosinski
K thanks
This guy has made a half dozen comments within a half hour just oozing AI silliness.
You are really missing a lot of context here. None of this is true in the way you seem to think it is.
You are mixing up marketing hype with reality.
Uh no. I use these things every day. There is a marked and notable improvement that is happening.
You are using these to solve the novel research problems no one else has solved?
Or you are using them to solve problems you don't know how to solve?
The things you're saying are marketing hype. Point me to the scientific journal where Claude is credited as a co-author of a research paper.
Ive also read these articles. I also use LLMs every day. I'm working on building closed agentic loops right now. I think I'm pretty on top of the current state of the art here.
The truth is much more nuanced and much less exciting than you think it is.
Actually yes, kind of. I use it to find financial fraud from large public datasets. It wasn't trained to do that, in the slightest.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ai-disproves-a-decades-old-mathematical-idea-the-biggest-conjecture-that-the-tech-has-played-a-role-in-yet-180989189/
https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/openai-says-its-unreleased-astra-model-solved-10-hard-math-problems-anthropic-claims-fable-cracked-5-2962067-2026-08-03
What hype am I falling for?
A scientific journal where claude is a co-author? First of all, what does that even mean? Like what is that a metric of? You think no one has used Claude to help them with novel scientific problems? I mean, come on.
And second of all, here you go: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36589923/#%3A%7E%3Atext=Rapamycin+in+the+context+of+Pascal%27s+Wager%3A%2C36589923.++PMCID%3A+PMC9796173.++DOI%3A+10.18632%2Foncoscience.571.
They banned them not long after.
Does this sound like AGI?
Also, this is once again not a novel problem. This was interpolation, not extrapolation.
AGI you mean? IDK It's arguably here. They're senile, though. Working with a senile genius is the best way I can put it, I think. Is it "people?" IDK fuck if I know. How could we ever really know?
That "IDK" is doing some heavy lifting.
arguably, too? so maybe it's actually like, a reasonable statement? and not the assertion y'all are pretending it is?
M not trying to be super rude here but the truth is, It's arguable if you argue with people who don't know any better. So in that sense, sure.
When it comes to people that take these things seriously, it's not a really a very hot topic. We're clearly nowhere near AGI.
Really good LLM != AGI
I don't really know what AGI means, I guess. If we're talking about something that benchmarks as high as the average human, we're way, way past that. If we're talking about something that benchmarks as high as experts in all areas, we're not there, but we're not that far off. When connected to the internet? It's basically there.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ai-disproves-a-decades-old-mathematical-idea-the-biggest-conjecture-that-the-tech-has-played-a-role-in-yet-180989189/
They're literally solving problems that humans haven't been able to. They ARE capable of novel concepts, to whatever degree. No offense but y'all seem like your knowledge is like three years old.
If you actually read instead of continuing to spam bullshit you would know this isn't true.
You say "haven't been able to". This is fucking false my dude. At best it's solved problems humans haven't been bothered to solve yet. The solutions already existed and it assembled them into a proof.
You don't know what any of this means dawg. You are literally just saying shit that you heard other people say.
Well my calculator can solve a random nine digit number to the power of another random nine digit number faster than any human can, so I guess calculators have been AGI for decades!
LOL. That's quite a bold assertion.
Have you interacted with Fable? It scored on ARC AGI 3 and is pretty dang impressive at everything I've thrown at it. They're solving problems humans haven't. They're just senile. Also is calling something "arguable" really an assertion? More of a headscratcher than a real question, I suppose.
Citation needed.
I'm guessing we have different definitions of "solving" and "humans haven't".
I've never seen any evidence that LLMs can extrapolate into truly novel problem spaces. Can problems be "solved" though interpolation? Sure but not likely novel ones.
Techbros always exaggerate the claims.
I notice here the distinction between "haven't" vs. "can't".
Claiming that LLMs can be useful in solving some problems that humans simply haven't bothered to spend time looking at more deeply is one thing, but turning around and using those solutions - which may genuinely be low-key exciting and even useful for some practical purposes - is not the same thing as representing evidence that the LLM has reached AGI status, let alone being up to the "~~very stable~~ senile genius" level.
Apples to oranges, except I note that where hype was needed for profits, somehow statements that vaguely look correct (if you don't delve too deeply) were found and provided. i.e., LLMs might not have reached the level of intelligence of an actual mathematical genius, senile or otherwise, but perhaps it has reached the intelligence level of an average techbro⁉️ (who again only values the appearance of correctness and doesn't let little things like "facts" get in the way of their statements!)
Oh the frontier models definitely can, now.
https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/openai-says-its-unreleased-astra-model-solved-10-hard-math-problems-anthropic-claims-fable-cracked-5-2962067-2026-08-03
These are not novel problems, this isn't a real source and this has nothing to do with AGI.
Literally starts with "OpenAI says" lol
If you want to learn more about what's really going on here:
https://sciencereader.com/ai-mathematics-breakthrough-hossenfelder/
January 2026
Your video is ancient in this context. It does not reference any of this, actually.
You have a very hype driven view of how fast things are moving.
https://www.ibm.com/think/news/ai-cracked-jacobian-conjecture-humans-called-play
I'm not going to keep doing this because I honestly don't care if you want to be wrong. I've been writing these comments for other people who are going to read this thread and are interested the topic.
You obviously are not interested in taking these kinds of things seriously so just keep posting ads if you really want.
Okay I'm sorry to say this but you literally don't know what you're talking about if you don't think that six months is a massive time frame right now. You are equating Gemini 3 to Mythos. It's not comparable. You should actually do some research into this, since you seem to be so sure of yourself, what's the harm!
Here's an article from the smithsonian, if that helps. About the last round of AI math developments. Which was in July. So, yes, your video about something entirely different from six months ago is not actually very pertinent to the discussion?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ai-disproves-a-decades-old-mathematical-idea-the-biggest-conjecture-that-the-tech-has-played-a-role-in-yet-180989189/
I know it's not because I do know what I'm talking about.
I've been hearing tech bros like you echo this same argument since GPT3 came out.
I promise you I'm very up to date on the state of the art.
No, my original article was about GPT5.6 and you are talking about Fabel. Mythos likely doesnt even exist.
You are (willfully?) missing the point by refusing to engage with the concept being illustrated in the article. It doesn't matter that it's not 2 days old. The point is that these are not novel problems and AI is not solving them in the way you think it is.
The challenges here have been about the time it would take a human to solve the problem not the technical difficulty involved in solving the problem.
Thanks for letting me leave this conversation. Look up project glasswing. I guess all of those partners are just in on the conspiracy. Mate, you've got no fucking clue. Enjoy being swept up in the storm that is coming for all of us, blindly holding onto your moving goalposts.
That says a lot more about you than it says about LLM's
Yes. "Arguably unicorns exist" is me asserting there exist legitimate arguments for unicorns existing. By saying it this way I get to imply they exist without having to provide any real arguments myself, and if anyone attacks my position I can fall back to "I'm not saying they do exist, just implying there are other people who think they exist without providing any sources or arguments actually supporting that claim."
"AI" is going to coalesce into a single mass before it implodes.