"Sure it might produce convincing examples of human speech, but it fundamentally lacks an internal point of view that it can express..."
Sounds just like the chess experts from 30 years ago. Their belief at the time was that computers were good at tactical chess, but had no idea how to make a plan. And Go would be impossible for computers, due to the branching factor. Humans would always be better, because they could plan.
GPT (or a future successor) might not be able to have "an internal point of view". But it might not matter.
This reminds of of the chess computers from 30 years ago. Experts were convinced computers would never beat GM humans, based on the state-of-the-art of the time. They never took into account all the future advancements in hardware and software.
The company has not yet provided any real numbers. I want to know how much electricity is generated at a specific wind speed. The lack of this most basic number leads me to believe this isn't as good as it sounds.
picking 1 would still dominate over any other strategy, in a head-to-head.
However, if you are trying to maximize your H2H score against a pool of contestants, a cooperation strategy, where you both alternated taking the lower number would be close to optimal.
It's not over for traditional moving-making. It would be decades before the software and hardware could surpass. But it will improve tremendously, just like computers do for nearly everything.
There have been recent advances in sand batteries to store heat. Use the excess energy to heat the sand. Then pull heat from it in the winter to heat the house. Unsure if this would scale down to personal usage.
Engineered wood solved that problem. Plywood is a type of engineered wood. Same for gluelams, LVLs, and CLTs. These are typically stronger than solid timber, including old growth.
It does take more energy to fabricate, but still much less than concrete and steel.