Well, wait, if somebody writes a computer program that answers 5 of 6 IMO questions/proofs correctly, and you don't consider it an "advance," what would qualify?

Either both AI teams cheated, in which case there's nothing to worry about, or they didn't, in which case you've set a pretty high bar. Where is that bar, exactly? What exactly does it take to justify blowing off copyright law in the larger interest of progress? (I have my own answers to that question, including equitable access to the resulting models regardless of how impressive their performance might be, but am curious to hear yours.)

The technology is capable in a way that never existed before. We haven't yet begun to see the impacts of that. I don't think it will be a good for humanity.

Social networks as they exist today represent technology that didn't exist decades ago. I wouldn't call it an "advancement" though. I think social media is terrible for humans in aggregate.

I notice you've motte-and-baileyed from "revolutionize both the practice and philosophy of computing and advance mankind to the next stage of its own intellectual evolution" to simply "is considered an 'advance'".

You may have meant to reply to someone else. recursive is the one who questioned whether an advance had really been made, and I just asked for clarification (which they provided).

I'm pretty bullish on ML progress in general, but I'm finding it harder every day to disagree with recursive's take on social media.