I have no idea what you think those paragraphs say that is at all relevant here.

Maybe you should make an argument, and cite evidence for it?

Or maybe you should be less easily conned by deceptive phrases like “symbolic world models” which is exactly the opposite of a world model. They are coopting the vocabulary of competitors like Yann LeCun to claim to be doing things they aren’t: “structural logic” is not world modeling; game-mapping is not world modeling.

Corporate propaganda should not con you this easily.

“If you have to pretend that AI isn’t getting more capable, or isn’t going to get much more capable, or especially that it can’t do what it can already do, this will require more departure from reality over time. You will keep being increasingly wrong as reality keeps slapping you in the face, and you will notice on various levels that your position makes no sense. That will be increasingly unpleasant.” Zvi Mowshowitz

“GPT-6 Astra surpasses the human baseline in action efficiency on ARC-AGI-3. It used fewer actions than the median tested human on 96% of levels. A key behavior observed in GPT-6 Astra was its ability to turn unfamiliar environments into compact symbolic world models. It represented game mechanics as logical rules and developed its own domain-specific language shorthand to track state and plan actions.” arcprize.org

I sympathize.

Excellent insights. Exactly what I’ve been thinking and wanting to say. The only reason I couldn’t write the article myself was that I couldn’t find a way to stop cursing every time I even think about AI.

“Extraordinary” profit? Um. No. All disproved here with extensive facts.

But by all means, bet your shirt on that. Just don’t come begging here when you lose it all in a couple of years.

I also wouldn’t trust a self-driving Tesla. Their record of killing people is high. Whereas if you are using a Waymo you aren’t using LLM AI but a real model-building proto-AI. Just as explained in my article.

As for robots with thumbs, we’ve had those for fifty plus years. You seem to be confusing standard robotics with the lies of Elon Musk and others about “AI” robots, which have all been shams, and none are in general production, for a reason. And real robotics researchers are going to lap them for a reason. You might want to invest your money with them. I name some in my article so you know who they are.

Lol. I don’t know what any of that has to do with anything I extensively documented. Either you are a bot or you are very bad at critical thinking and imagine these non sequiturs can override a vast array of scientific evidence and documented facts and phenomena.

Maybe AI has already rotted your brain. But I get the impression you don’t really use it in any critical way so as to discover or be affected by its failures. You’re like someone who drives drunk all the time on the argument that it’s always worked out before.

Cars already drive themselves, and are getting better at it by the second. Robots will learn how to complete all tasks that require thumbs, and LLMs will be plenty robust to allow lay people to interact with them. These things are not fantasy. They exist already. Incremental improvement is all that is needed, and it is incredibly impressive already.

But yea not all of these companies are going to make it. It might be a bubble, but you’re pretending like the dot com bubble destroyed all of e commerce. Amazon won. Investors in Amazon really won. But it certainly got ugly for a lot of folks.

I think you’re just flat out wrong, and you’ll be proven wrong again and again, one use case at a time.

The whitelist worked for me. I’m adding a reference to:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.03837

(Accelerating Scientific Research with Gemini: Case Studies and Common Techniques), as it may provide further context to the message communicated by Knuth.