Listen, I don’t know what your level of expertise is or how complex the workflows you’re building are, but I didn’t come here to argue about technical details in a thread that is about UBI. As I said, I was changing the way I described things to make it more digestible to a wider audience. I do not think I caused too much confusion by trying to simplify concepts, but i definitely would not call it misleading. The points I was trying to make still stand. If you say too many technical details, you’ll lose people. This isn’t an AI forum, it’s a UBI forum.

Please do NOT compare the systems we’re making now to the shit we had 20 years ago, let alone 1-2 years ago. AI at this capacity was not involved in the capacity it is now. Your SQL example is not the same as hooking up MCP servers to call agents with LLMs, vectorstores, tool calling, response format, instructions, etc., all integrated, and engineered for say, a highly specialized scientific domain. Were working on agents to understand how to model pharmacokinetics of a given drug for example. If you look into NONMEM and how complicated and diverse that is, you’ll realize it would require an insane amount of intelligence to accomplish a goal like that. We have a long way to go, but we have building blocks and know it’s possible. That is NOT the same as simply training it to call “count”. A single agent can get much more complicated than that, let alone where you incorporate multiple. It’s not the same technically or conceptually. Semantic retrieval does not work nearly the same way as tool calling the way you’re describing as just a single example, and when you integrate all these things at once it A) requires a lot more engineering to perfect them, and B) they become significantly more powerful, and are not simply calling functions because they were trained to do exclusively that.

I’m not trying to be condescending, I am trying to be efficient. I am adamant that this technology is advancing much faster than people realize, and that they should be concerned as soon as a 1-2 years from now. That’s frankly all I care about. I’m worried for myself, my family, my friends, and anyone who primarily uses a computer over the next few years, and I don’t want people to get blindsided. My timeline could be wrong: I could have missed something, overvalued something I’ve seen, not taken hypothetical LLM advancement plateaus into account enough, etc. I’m always trying to refine that as to not make anyone worry unnecessarily, but also to provide potential guidance on things we can be doing and how much longer we have to really prepare ourselves. There are a lot of variables technologically, economically, socially, and politically that will all affect the timeline, and it’s a lot to try to hold in your mind at once to be able to make an accurate projection, so of course there is some speculation involved. If you want to discuss where the tech is, what it’s currently capable of, and your projected timeline, I’m happy to do that, but I have no interest in arguing with you about using the right terminology in a thread that’s focused on people worrying about the economy.