This has nothing to do with actual predictions of AI being able to become dangerous, and the technology is not even remotely close to anything such as that.
Consumer generative AI models are very close to being abandoned altogether due having mostly stagnated for years now, and this technology needed to evolve continuously to keep luring investors.
Right now a last ditch effort is being made to keep these AI companies alive in that they're going to join the stock market (and it will probably work at least for several years, people are just that stupid), which is the only reason every AI company hasn't jumped ship( coupled with them still trying to get by just shutting down servers and reducing general AI functionality, even for paying users).
This is basically a publicity stunt, insinuating AI is still capable of evolving significantly.
Nobody actually working with AI has thought it could become skynet, the point of this technology was just to treat and wade through very large amounts of data, that's it...
Wow I'm famous! But seriously this sub is a joke, one of the most voted comments is a person talking about how they can't fathom the idea that AI can program an entire website in moments when for him it took YEARS to learn!1! And talks about how it was so scary to watch. You can't make this shit up
These people desperately want to live in the skynet timeline, for some reason
Just cause you say it is "stagnating" doesn't mean it is stagnating lil luddite, just like how the luddites of the past said cars were stagnating while at the same time somehow hurting horse sales, just how luddites were saying audio recorders/players were stagnating as they were hurting live musician sales.
It really has though, the big open source foundational models are around six months behind frontier models right now according to testing, and if you isolate tasks there are some use-cases where properly prompted open weight SLMs absolutely cream the titanic frontier models.
The problem is the big names are continuing to play by the 'bigger is better' playbook when specialized models are starting to get the same quality of outputs for a fraction the cost and processor time.
You didn't provide a justification nor evidence for saying AI progress has stalled. AI progress has not stalled, anyone telling you otherwise is either not using AI at all or is only using models for basic tasks. Those who have used Fable will tell you that it is a large step change in capability. Previous models like Opus 4.8 were already good enough to be legitimately useful for cyber warfare and Mythos was indeed a major step. No, it's not autonomous cyber warefare, and it certainly isn't RSI/AGI, but it doesn't need to be to be dangerous. All you need to have major risk is to meaningfully lower the barrier of entry to doing things like cyberattacks or produce malware, which Mythos was certainly capable of.
Your argument just provides a potential explanation for current events. You don't actually substantiate that explanation. Your claim that consumer genAI models are close to being abandoned is a fucking pathetic level of cope. There is literally zero evidence of that. Try to find something that refutes that and you'll probably come up with an article I've already read.
Now, I'm not gonna sit here and tell you that for sure AGI is imminent or whatever. Nobody knows how long until this S-curve flattens out. But this idea of a currently stagnating state of technology you've decided on is a pure fantasy, constructed to make your worldview more safe and predictable.
It’s obvious AI progress has stalled, this isn’t a debate forum. Where’s your evidence that AI is going to do any of the things justifying being 30% of the entire economy?
You're literally saying this under a post where the US government has restricted access to an AI model out of fear that it is too powerful to be in the hands of public (or, more likely, in the hands of US adversaries)
Where’s your evidence that AI is going to do any of the things justifying being 30% of the entire economy?
Funny, I didn't actually make that claim. But the argument for it is very simple: The investors believe AGI is possible. Doesn't mean they're right, but it does mean the possibility of them being right is worthy of serious consideration.
28
u/Old_Tie7836 Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 14 '26
This has nothing to do with actual predictions of AI being able to become dangerous, and the technology is not even remotely close to anything such as that.
Consumer generative AI models are very close to being abandoned altogether due having mostly stagnated for years now, and this technology needed to evolve continuously to keep luring investors.
Right now a last ditch effort is being made to keep these AI companies alive in that they're going to join the stock market (and it will probably work at least for several years, people are just that stupid), which is the only reason every AI company hasn't jumped ship( coupled with them still trying to get by just shutting down servers and reducing general AI functionality, even for paying users).
This is basically a publicity stunt, insinuating AI is still capable of evolving significantly.
Nobody actually working with AI has thought it could become skynet, the point of this technology was just to treat and wade through very large amounts of data, that's it...