Comment by Velorivox

> In this context, never. Especially because the parent knows you will always ask 2+2 and can just teach the child to say “four” as their first and only word. You’ll be on to them, too.

On the assumption that you'll always only ask it "what's 2+2?" Keywords being "always" & "you".

In aggregate, the set of questions will continuously expand as a non-zero percentage of people will ask new questions. The set of questions asked will continue to expand, and the LLMs will continue to be trained to fill in the last 20%.

Even under the best interpretations, this is the detractors continuously moving goalposts, because the last 20% will never be filled: New tasks will continuously be found, and critics will point to them as "oh, see, they can't do that". By the time that the LLMs can do those tasks, the goalpost will be moved to a new point and they'll continue to be hypocrites.

------

> > At what point would you be impressed by a human being if you asked it to help you with a task every 6 months from birth until it was 30 years old?

Taking GP's question seriously:

When a task consisting of more than 20 non-decomposable (atomic) sub-tasks is completed above 1 standard deviation of the human average in that given task. (much more likely)

OR

When an advancement is made in a field by that person. (statistically much rarer)

To be clear, I’m just saying the analogy isn’t great, not that one can never be impressed by an LLM (or a person for that matter)!