> AI doesn't grow (as it is today), it's stuck on the low-junior level mostly. This might change, but currently there are no signs for this.
This is such a bizarre take. The entire history of AI is of growth, to say nothing of the last few decades, or even the past few years. To say that there are no signs that AI grows is, if nothing else, counter-proof that humans don't grow from generation to generation. We make the same logically fallacies that we did millennia ago.
I'm having a hard time identifying any thing which could be labeled "AI" in my programming experience, outside of LLMs. Considering things I've also read about, that probably takes us back to 1950.
This is such a bizarre take. The entire history of AI is of growth, to say nothing of the last few decades, or even the past few years. To say that there are no signs that AI grows is, if nothing else, counter-proof that humans don't grow from generation to generation. We make the same logically fallacies that we did millennia ago.