Well, yes, that's the bit that I don't understand. It's obvious that the tech is not doing what they claim it is, it's not designed to, and no plausible future development based on the tech is going to do it. And nobody seems to be working on any real approaches to AI because these awful things are sucking all the resources.
What I'm thinking is, there's really two camps right? There's like the actual Less Wrong-type dyed-in-the-wool technofetishists who really really want AI to exist, they have like an almost ideological stake it in existing and succeeding because it's a necessary step on the way to the 80's-Trek Utopian future they dream of. They're literally trying to hope AI into existence and they're not going to be moved by rational criticism I think just because that's not how ideology works. And then you have tech hype-cycle douches who love AI because they're convinced they can make money off of it. They're all hardened crypto-bros, so they know that the key to making money is to keep the bubble growing as long as possible, and the way you do that is by ignoring and suppressing "FUD" and just being toxically-positive about the inevitable success of your doomed project. They don't care whether "real" AI ever develops or whether an LLM can get there or not - they pretend to believe it, but it's fake enthusiasm to sustain the bubble. Their primary concern is onboarding suckers and cashing out at the peak. And I think there's SOME overlap between these two groups of course, but not a lot.
I guess there is a third group, just regular tech investors who can't ignore the bubble. They're probably the ones who are going to pop it when they start pulling out after one two many red flags.
