and how you define technology. Look outside, look in the store, stuff is static or getting worse and prices are rising. I can see no evidence of accelerating technological progress outside. when will "AI" do anything that makes life better for a normal person?

I sometimes feel like I'm living in another world to some people.

* AI reduced hospital deaths by 17%: A trial of 15,965 patients found AI-assisted ECG monitoring reduced 90-day mortality from 4.3% to 3.6%. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-02961-4

* AI improved stroke treatment: NHS hospitals using AI-assisted brain scans doubled clot-removal treatment rates from 2.3% to 4.6%. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41339157/

* AI restored communication for a paralysed patient: A man with ALS used an AI brain-computer interface to communicate over 183,000 sentences and maintain full-time employment. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-026-04414-6

These have happened in the very short space of time that AI has become really competent. The stuff in the pipeline is mind boggling, and includes curing most cancers, curing ageing, unlimited energy, etc.

Richard Stallman told y'all when it happened that it was happening

And the massive corporations that bought bad debt? I guess those poor bastards probably couldn't have known any better

I actually didn't say anything about them at all.

because selling inference is not their end-goal product, its just a milestone to continue to maintain positive public sentiment and attract talent

> its just a milestone to continue to maintain positive public sentiment and attract talent

Google’s talent is solid B tier in 2026. Better than IBM but worse than Microsoft and Amazon.

Even if Google had “talent” this talent wouldn’t be able to accomplish anything due to corporate politics.

I worked at Google up until 2 months ago. In my exit survey, the #1 reason I left: "Bureaucracy"

article is complete unreadable slop.

But to reply to the headline, becuase it's impossible to predict reliability of something new, and it's not possible to evaluate reliability based on a single example, you need lots of data collected over long periods of time.

The only thing most reviewers can do is speculate based on the reputation of the designer/manufacturer, and an educated guess based on the object's architecture and materials.

maybe, or maybe some problems turn out to be reasonably defeatable by educated guess brute forcing with lots of compute and big models pointing the search in reasonable directions.

Yes, maybe what is hard for LLMs and what is hard for humans have a very small overlap. But calling it brute force or low-hanging fruits is still a bit absurd.

You can safely argue that it's statistics, because by construction it is. But then, maybe nothing is anything more than statistics.

If I'm not mistaken, a lot of math researchers work at openAI full time on using LLM's to tackle open research problems

this must be nailed to the wall somewhere at autodesk

dont question computer god!!