> Astra, a new model that OpenAI is testing internally, is amazing. No denying that.

To sharpen that, I think he's (obviously) interested in maintaining his own brand as "thought leader" and this necessitates de rigeur defense of particular postures.

Sometimes this is easy because the facts warrant it; other times, a bit of rhetorical license is required to preserve nominal coherence and (at least, for the moment) hold certain lines.

This is one of the latter cases, and it's not subtle.

One of the celebrated properties of many intellectual advances or inventions in whatever domain is precisely that it appears obvious in hindsight. It is quite cynical to leverage consensus distrust of large AI players, warranted but also a popular social construction, to insinuate that these are not "real" advances or "real" hard problems, on the grounds they were in some sense cherry-picked.

Identifying the problems amenable to strategies on the table and intuitions (sic) about where bridges might be, is exactly the discerning work that is the core driver of almost all prior progress, but for celebrated accidents and flashes of insight. Anyone working in any challenging discipline knows that those are celebrated and told around campfires precisely because meaningful durable results arising like that is so uncommon.

These two articles make me think of nothing so much as my own durable reaction to the creeping goalposts of AI critics generally: that they often seem to me not unlike a water color cohort scoffing and jeering at the horse, because it got a D on its tensor calculus exam.

Marcus should be on guard against his own cynicism and take care that his assumptions do not prevent clear sight.

I think that is an oxymoron.