> We have been fed a steady diet of bullshit for the last several years.

--General purpose agents that turn out to suck so badly people struggle to find real-world use cases for them.

--Allegedly godlike models that turn out to be incremental advances.

--Claims like 'We now know how to build AGI' that never turn out to be true.

--Promises for world-changing science that rarely materialize.

--Cherry-picked studies, benchmark-gaming, and now even vibe-coded graphs, with zero transparency about how systems work or how they have been trained; public science is in the rear view mirror.

This definition sounds like a bunch of fancy words for Propaganda? How is “PSYOPS” different?

Let's say that I can make a stochastic parrot with a tunable bias. Let's say I want to run the world. If I can get everyone to accept the parrot as actually smarter than humans, and so everyone listens to it as an authority, and I control the parrot, then I run the world.

(if he is right, then one of the above is likely, right?)

(otoh, if he is wrong, does anyone have some very solid, well considered counterpoints to share?)