No matter what they say LLMs are not intelligent. AI is a a scam. It’s predictive algorithms on an incredible scale which in the right applications can be really amazing tools but this promise of agi, sentience and the claims of thoughts, feelings, emotions, hallucinations and yes intelligence… absolutely just a scam.

PhD Level expertise:

“GPT-5 is the first time that it really feels like talking to an expert in any topic, like a PhD-level expert.”

Yeah, feels like. Not actually examples of thinking and doing things at that level.

“These systems, as impressive as they are, haven’t been able to be really profitable,” … “There is a fear that we need to keep up the hype, or else the bubble might burst, and so it might be that it’s mostly marketing.”

That’s the painful truth. No profit, a lot of hype and a market in a 2008 financial crisis bubble.

Salesman gonna sell.

Altman is quite good at it actually. Remember when he was saying how scared he was of his own AI. Or calling for increased regulation because their models are just sooo good that government has to nerf them.

https://www.colincornaby.me/2025/08/in-the-future-all-food-will-be-cooked-in-a-microwave-and-if-you-cant-deal-with-that-then-you-need-to-get-out-of-the-kitchen/

I know too many PhD’s for that to impress me

You can tell this is marketing fluff, because GPT could already provide “PhD-level expertise” - just in a hit-and-miss fashion that you couldn’t rely upon without some other form of verification. So how is this different?

At carbon footprint levels approaching the US military coming soon!

Part of what makes these models so dangerous is that as they become more “powerful” or “accurate”, it becomes more and more difficult for people to determine where the remaining inaccuracies lie. Anything using them as a source are then more at risk of propagating those inaccuracies which the model may feed on further down the line, reinforcing them.

Nevermind the fact that 100% is just statistically impossible, and they’ve clearly hit the point of diminishing returns some time ago so every 0.1% comes at increased cost and power. And, you know, any underlying biases.

Just ridiculously unethical and dangerous.

Geriatric senile PhD on too many painkillers whose area of expertise was a pseudoscience like phrenology before it was rejected, maybe.

They have stolen more PhD level work to dump into the training model?