> Humans are on the verge of building machines that are smarter than we are.
You're not describing a system that exists. You're describing a system that might exist in some sci-fi fantasy future. You might as well be saying "there's no point learning to code because soon the rapture will come".
That particular future exists now, it's just not evenly distributed. Gemini 2.5 Pro Thinking is already as good at programming as I am. Architecture, probably not, but give it time. It's far better at math than I am, and at least as good at writing.
Computers beat us in maths decades ago, yet LLMs are not able to beat a calculator half of the time. The maths benchmarks that companies so proudly show off are still the realm of a traditional symbolic solvers. You claiming much success in asking LLMS for math makes me question if you have actually asked an LLM about maths.
Most AI experts not heavily invested in the stocks of inflated tech companies seem to agree that current architectures cannot reach AGI. It's a sci-fi dream, but hyping it is real profitable. We can destroy ourselves plenty with the tech we already have, but it won't be a robot revolution that does it.
The maths benchmarks that companies so proudly show off are still the realm of a traditional symbolic solvers. You claiming much success in asking LLMS for math makes me question if you have actually asked an LLM about maths.
What I really need to ask an LLM for is a pointer to a forum that doesn't cultivate proud exhibition of ignorance, Luddism, and general stupidity at the level exhibited by commenters in this entire HN story, and in this subthread in particular.
> Humans are on the verge of building machines that are smarter than we are.
You're not describing a system that exists. You're describing a system that might exist in some sci-fi fantasy future. You might as well be saying "there's no point learning to code because soon the rapture will come".