The Download: why AI's latest breakthroughs and fears may be more hype than rea

I think the pumped-up hype nicely coincides with some A.I. companies' desire to go public in the coming weeks or months.

I see lots of fabricated news on the internet concerning LLMs. Like one that claims GPT-6 broke an Enigma enciphered message which has withstood decrypting for almost 80 years. And how this seasoned cryptographer stood in awe. Yeah, right.

> Describing them as “superintelligence” or “rogue models” ascribes agency to products rather than to the companies building them. This framing markets these companies’ products as “superhuman” and, at the same time, helps the companies evade accountability for their actions.

If someone discovered how to summon demons to aid them in robbing banks the main issue wouldn't be "but who has the responsibility for the crime, the human or the demon", it would be "OMG DEMONS".

Seriously, I don't get what sort of world these people are living in.

It's just a marketing stunt. I can't get Claude to align buttons properly most of the times, they're not going to conquer the world

Is this meant to link to the article as opposed to a newsletter that mentions the article?

Article link is: https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/09/22/1144867/dont-be-...

Feels like the blockchain bubble all over again, just with more impressive demo reels. Still waiting for my LLM to write perfect code.

People aren't seeing the forest through the trees.

While lots of developers, journalists, analysts, investors and influencers are bickering about AGI, goalposts, benchmarks, hypes and fears, entire markets are being transformed silently and steadily.

I don't program anymore. (Massive change)

I removed tons of technical debt (Massive change, lol)

I am easily 10x more productive (Massive change)

The quality of 'my' code is easily 10x better and contains less bugs (I was never principled, pedantic or a guru, lol)

I sleep better and I also make more money as a result. I'm constantly amazed by all changes and improvements. There are so many opportunities to profit from this that I can't be bothered with discussions about hypotheticals.

It's a tough situation when your claim to fame is "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?" arguing models should be kept to < GPT-2 size because larger models will serve no purpose or function:

Text generated by an LM is not grounded in communicative intent, any model of the world, or any model of the reader’s state of mind. It can’t have been, because the training data never included sharing thoughts with a listener, nor does the machine have the ability to do that. This can seem counter-intuitive given the increasingly fluent qualities of automatically generated text, but we have to account for the fact that our perception of natural language text, regardless of how it was generated, is mediated by our own linguistic competence and our predisposition to interpret communicative acts as conveying coherent meaning and intent, whetheror not they do [89, 140]. The problem is, if one side of the communication does not have meaning, then the comprehension of the implicit meaning is an illusion arising from our singular human understanding of language (independent of the model).

And then they make 100x bigger models cranking out solutions to Navier Stokes, Jacobian Conjecture and countless other extremely impressive unsolved problems

Let's see how Timnit Gebru and Emily M. Bender describe these events:

As for the mathematical results, mathematicians who were initially “stunned” by OpenAI’s press release saying that its latest chatbot, Astra, solved problems that “have been open and seen no progress on the main result for at least a decade”—but they later realized that the results weren’t as “novel as first appeared.” Since then, mathematicians have accused the company of research misconduct and plagiarism, and they’ve reiterated that Astra didn’t make a “profound intellectual leap.”

Decide for yourself whether that's a summary written by intellectually honest people.

According to the AI industry, we should be more worried about a fictional machine god than ... the water that is redirected to cooling them.

Spoiler: they're not intellectually honest people.

[dead]

[flagged]