Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Are people in tech inside an AI echo chamber?

news.ycombinator.com

371–380 of 755 posts

Re: Ask HN: Are people in tech inside an AI echo chamber?

#372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reason makes sense, but that's insanely powerful (and valuable) if it ends up working out. It basically democratizes programming.

That's exactly what it does. It closes the gap. Even now with all its shortcomings and issues. It's actively solving problems for people and saving time / creating efficiency. That has value and economic utility. I honestly don't get what a lot of the cynics in this thread and their "highly technical/IT friends" are missing.

It's not saving time or creating efficiency for everyone equally. It's absolutely democratizing some complex tasks. I'll stick to software here, where AI enhances the abilities of non-programmers to give them a taste of what programmers have been doing for decades.

But does it enhance the end product? Does it improve upon the work of already competent developers? Does it actually solve the real problems that software engineers face? Highly debatable. It certainly makes cranking out code more "efficient" - but anyone who's every created software knows that cranking out lines of code is a terrible metric for success. Poor quality code has less than zero value, it's a liability. As the prevalence of bot-generated code goes up, it will place an increasingly high burden on actual professionals to clean up the mess.

Re: Ask HN: Are people in tech inside an AI echo chamber?

#373
post #251

A while back I was meeting nontechnical people in their 50s and 60s and they were all asking me about ChatGPT. I asked if they tried it. "No." --"You know it's free, right?" "Yes." I found this inexplicable and infuriating. Perhaps someone can shed light on the psychology of such people?

They were curious enough to ask you about it, to make conversation, but without a specific use or utility in mind hadn't (yet?) bothered. Why did you find this infuriating? There's only so much time in the day; different people have different priorities.

Same energy as when someone asks me to Google something for them.

Re: Ask HN: Are people in tech inside an AI echo chamber?

#374
post #92

FWIW I have the exact opposite experience: people around me, who are _NOT_ in tech, keep talking about AI and lately especially ChatGPT, whereas serious (not only senior) IT professionals don't really. Besides the science behind it, currently it feels like the same hype as crypto a couple years before.

The difference between AI and crypto is that AI does (some) existing work more efficiently (and is poised to become more efficient), while crypto does existing work less efficiently (and its inefficiencies are inextricable).

Re: Ask HN: Are people in tech inside an AI echo chamber?

#375
> but maybe AI mainstream adoption will take longer than we anticipate.

Here's how the adoption of this technology is going to go (this is the way all AI technology adoption has gone for 60 years):

1) Papers will come out showing how by creating a more effective way to leverage compute + data to make a system self-improving, performance at some task looks way better than previous AI systems, almost human-like. (This already happened: "All You Need Is Attention")

2) The first generally available implementations of the technology, in a pretty raw form, will be released. People will be completely amazed at how this machine can do something that was thought to be a hallmark of humans! And by just doing $SIMPLE_THING (search, token prediction) which isn't "really" "thinking"! (This will amaze some people but also form the basis of a lot of negative commentary) (Also already happened: ChaGPT, etc)

3) There will be a huge influx of speculative investment capital into the space and a bunch of startups will appear to take advantage of this. At the same time, big old tech companies will start putting stickers on their existing products that say they're powered by LLMs. (Also already happened)

4) There will be a wave of press, first in the academia, then in technology circles, then in the mainstream, about What This Means. "AGI" is just over the horizon, all human jobs are about to be gone, society totally transformed. (We are currently here at step 4)

5) After a while, the limits of the technology will start to become clear. A lot of the startups will figure out that they don't really have a business, but a few will be massively successful and either build real ongoing businesses that use LLMs to solve problems for people, or get acquired. It will turn out that LLMs are massively, massively useful for some previously-thought-to-be-nearly-impossible or at least contigent on solving the general AI problem work: something like intent extraction, grammarly-type writing assistants, Intellisense on steroids, building natural chat interfaces to APIs in products like Siri or Alexa that understand "turn on the light" and "turn on the lights" mean the same thing. I have no idea what the things will actually be, if I was good at that sort of thing I'd be rich.

6) There will be a bunch of "LLMs are useless!" press. Because LLMs don't have Rosie-from-the-Jetsons level of human-like intelligence, they will be considered "a failure" for the general AI problem. Once people get accustomed to whatever the actual completely amazing things LLMs get used for, things that seemed "impossible" in 2021. Startups will fail. Enrollments in AI courses in school will drop, VCs will pull back from the category, AI in general (not just LLMs) will be considered a doomed investment category for a few years. This entire time, LLMs will be used every day by huge numbers of people to do super helpful things. But it will turn out that no one wants to see a movie where the screenplay is written by AI. The LLM won't be able to drive a car. All the media websites that are spending money to have LLMs write articles will find out that LLM-generated content is a completely terrible way to get people to come to your site, read some stuff and look at ads, with terrible economics, and these people will lose at least hundreds of millions of dollars, probably low billions, collectively.

7) At this trough point where LLMs have "failed" and AI as a sector is toxic to VCs, what LLMs do will somehow be thought of as 'not AI'. "It's just predicting the next token" or something will become the accepted common thinking that disqualifies it as 'Artificial Intelligence'. LLMs and LLM engineering will be considered useful and necessary, but it will be considered a part of mainstream software engineering and not really 'AI' per se. People will generally forget that whatever workaday things LLMs turn into a trivial service call or library function, used to be massively difficult problems that people thought would require human-like general intelligence to solve (for instance, making an Alexa-like voice assistant that, can tell 'hey can you kill the lights', 'yo shutoff the overhead light please?', 'alright shut the lights', 'close the light' all mean the same thing). This will happen really fast. https://xkcd.com/1425/

Sometimes when you see an amazing magic show, if you later learn how the trick was done, it seems a lot less 'magical'. Most magic tricks exploit weird human perceptual phenomena and, most of all, the magicians willingness to master incredibly tedious technique and do incredibly tedious work. Even though we 'know' this at some level when we see magicians perform, it's still deflating to learn the details. For some reason, AI technology is subject to the same phenomenon.

Re: Ask HN: Are people in tech inside an AI echo chamber?

#376
post #6
post #3

Very much so. But also a hype wave. It's the successor the the big data wave, the ML wave, and countless others

Seems like the successor the crypto craze after that crashed. I'm expecting a wave of grifters fairly soon.

I see that comparison pop up quite often, and I really don't see the connection.

Cryptocurrencies have tried since 2009 to present some kind of problem to which they are supposedly the solution.

The problems that generative ML models can solve are pretty clear.

Re: Ask HN: Are people in tech inside an AI echo chamber?

#377

In the late 90's I got a Master's degree, specializing in neural networks. This caused me to learn about the hype cycle in AI, and since then I have seen it continue. Remember Watson, IBM's AI technology that was going to drive its growth? IBM got lots of press by making computers that could play chess and Jeopardy, which seemed impressive to people at the time, but they never found a way to make money from it. "AI w…

I think there have been so many hyped up stuff in the tech world that it's trained a lot of people to point at everything and call it part of the hype cycle.

But this causes people to literally fail to notice that there are many things in tech that Aren't just hype. I mean literally think about it, the internet wasn't just hype, the smart phone wasn't just hype. There's millions of things that weren't just hype.

>I have heard ChatGPT described as a better autosuggest, which sounds about right. It's not that autosuggest isn't useful, it can be very useful, but it's not a thing that is going to change the world, and the jobs which it will automate are neither numerous, nor very well paid even now.

This is a poor characterization. chatGPT has the capability of answering extremely complex questions with novel answers that are completely indistinguishable from human answers. And remember much of these answers are novel, meaning that it wasn't just a copy of the answer out of nowhere.

There are of course huge problems with our ability to control chatGPT to give us the correct answers consistently but the fact that it can even do the above 50% of the time is a feat that moves the needle far beyond a mere "auto suggest". All you need to do is increase that 50% rate and suddenly it can auto suggest you out of an entire career. Cross your fingers and hope token prediction is just a technological dead end and that we can't really raise the correctness rate past 50%. In many instances of project development getting to 50% is often the hard part and getting to 100% could be easier.

Re: Ask HN: Are people in tech inside an AI echo chamber?

#379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This—100%. The AI revolution with LLMs is creating a new type of interface with computers—the AI interface. Will it kill us all? Eh, probably not. Will it completely change human civilization forever? Eh... maybe not? (But also maybe). But what it already has begun to do, and will continue to do is change the way we interact with computers. The era of having a personal voice assistant that is capable, adaptable, and…

This is a perfect example of an AI-hype comment. You’re treating it as a fact that LLM are going to replace existing products, at some unknown future date. “In 5 years, all code will be written by AI” “In 5 years, LLM will replace Siri and Alexa” “In 5 years, AI will replace [sector of jobs]” The thing that frustrates me about these statements is that you don’t know what AI technology is going to look like in 5 years…

GPT4 just wrote a python script for me that downloaded a star catalogue, created a fish eye camera model, and then calculated the position of the camera relative to the stars by back propagating the camera position and camera parameters to match the star positions.

All I did was hold it's hand, it wrote every line of code. You are living in fantasy land if you think we will be writing lines of code in 10 years.

Re: Ask HN: Are people in tech inside an AI echo chamber?

#380

Definitely. The tech is impressive but anyone I've spoken to thinks of it as Cleverbot 2.0, and among the more technically minded I've found that people mostly are indifferent. Hell, IRL most people I know don't think much of it, though on HN and elsewhere online I see a lot of people praising it as the next coming of Christ (this thread included) which puts it in a similar tier as crypto and other Web3 hypetrains as…

There's a reason why most of the former web3 scammers now have "AI inventor" or "ChatGPT expert" in their profile tagline.

They gonna ruin even this technology with their hype marketing bullshit.

The issue I have with all the hype is not the technology itself, it will stay in one form or the other as a better interface for generalized instruction communications, but rather the scams and frauds that come with it.

Empty marketing promises where everybody advanced enough realizes that it cannot be true, and as a concept GPT is just throwing more averaged neurons to the problem instead of training more specialized expert transformers for multiple knowledge categories. Anybody remember IBM watson?

Why I always say that I don't do AI work is because people tend to think that sensorics (and neural nets that reduce a min/max problem space) already is AI. And I think it isn't. AI is where the bayesian approach is the bare minimum to deal with strategical decision making processes.

(Which probably makes this comment go to hell with downvotes but who cares :D)

Post reply on HN