I agree on the point of solving a problem, it's just a matter of time, skill, and some luck. The biggest problem I see with AI right now is that it's marketed as something it's not. Which leads to a lot of the issues we have with "AI" aka LLMs put in places they shouldn't be. Surprisingly they do manage pretty well a lot of the time, but when they fail it's really bad. I.e., AI as sold is a remarkable illusion that wow, everyone has bought into even knowing full well it's not near perfect.

The only thing that will "fix" current AI is true AGI development that would demonstrate the huge difference. AI/LLMs might be part of the path there, I don't know. It's not the real solution though, no matter how many small countries worth of energy we burn to generate answers.

I say all this as an active casual experimenter with local LLMs. What they can do, and how they do it is amazing, but I also know what I have and it's not what I call AI, that term has been tainted again by marketers trying to cash in on ignorance.

In your opinion, what would LLM usage look like in thirty years? Would it's inefficiency be solved somehow? Would it's generalistic approach (even conditioned, e.g. culinary LLM trained on recipes), become better than existing specialized tools? Would LLM cease to be the 'natural' playground for big corporations alone as no private citizen can train a comparable model? Would it still persist as an unpredictable black box? Would there arrive and stay new professions dedicated to be AI operators, e.g. forming correct text queues to the LLM, designing them and probably even getting patents on them?

A counter as I somewhat agree with you. Computers in that period weren't purchased and used by every company under the sun. It was a specialized system, mostly used by universities and research.

AI is being shoved into every possible orifice of modern society.

Did you at any point in this raving lunacy of a rant stop to think that maybe, just maybe the reason people hate AI is because it's bad?

I'm genuinely curious, how often does spouting off random bullshit work for you? Nothing you listed backs up your argument that the problems around AI are a result of it's infancy and first cut implementations.

Also, half of what you say is either untrue or disingenuous as all hell. "programs use unstructured jumps and were hard to follow"? What the fuck are you talking about? Please, find me a computer that didn't use something like a branch statement and didn't go in numerical sequence of instructions. I'll wait while you learn this so called "Instruction Set Standardization" of yours doesn't exist