Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 379 posts

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#181

Post by Otek »

selbyk wrote: post #98
Otek wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So stop evangelizing about stuff you haven’t used. Understanding code is easier than writing it from the scratch. That’s why code review doesn’t take as much time as writing code and you still need to prove your code works, even if you wrote it yourself.

Understanding code is only easier for simple tasks. I've definitely had copilot spit out complex algorithms that looked right at first glance but actually had major issues that required me to write it from scratch.

Thats why you test, this could also happen with code you wrote so it’s not an argument against copilot. Did you wrote your “complex algorithm” and then run and debugged it in your head? No, you’ve tested it. Do the same with Copilots code

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#182

Post by matwood »

dual_dingo wrote: post #32

The "I" in AI is just complete bullshit and I can't understand why so many people are in a awe of a bit of software that chains words to another based on some statistical model. The sad truth is that ChatGPT is about as good an AI as ELIZA was in 1966, it's just better (granted: much better) at hiding its total lack of actual human understanding. It's nothing more than an expensive parlor trick, IMHO. Github CoPilot?…

I agree. I didn't understand the big deal that it passed a google interview either. IMO, that said more about the uselessness of the interview than the 'AI'.

Co-pilot has been semi-useful. It's faster than search SO, but like you said, I still have to review all the code and it's often wrong in subtle ways.

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#183

Post by pixl97 »

brookst wrote: post #132
rcme wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I’m sick of AI products, I’m even more sick of the “ChatGPT is bullshit” argument.

The biggest thing I’ve learned from chatGPT is that real people struggle with the difference between intelligence, understanding, and consciousness / sentience.

Because they are all ill defined in the manner they are used in common language. Hell, we have trouble describing what they are, especially in a scientific fact based setting.

Before this point in history we accepted 'I am that I am' because there wasn't any challenger to the title. Now that we are putting this to question we realize our definitions may not work well.

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#184

Post by tarsinge »

liveoneggs wrote: post #160
auctoritas wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm more fatigued by people denying the obvious that ChatGPT and similar models are revolutionary. People have been fantasizing about the dawn of AI for almost a century and none managed to predict the rampant denialism of the past few months. I suppose it makes sense though. Denial is the default response when we face threats to our identity and sense of self worth.

So, to you, ChatGPT is approaching AGI?

Why the obsession with AGI? The point is that ChatGPT is already useful.

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#185

Post by britch »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #103

Engineers are always building things that are incredible, then turning their back on it as ordinary once the problem is solved, “oh that’s so normal, it was just a little math, a little tweak, no big deal”. AI has gone through a lot of stages of “only X can be done by a human”-> “X is done by AI” -> “oh, that’s just some engineering, that’s not really human” or “no longer in the category of mystical things we can’t e…

The problem with LLM in my view is that they're capped at what already exists.

Using them for "creative" things, is that they can parrot things back in the statistically average way, or maybe attempt to echo it in an existing style.

Copilot cannot use something because it prefers it, or thinks it's better than what's common. It can only repeat what is currently popular (and will likely be self reenforced over time)

When you write prose or code you develop preferences and opinions. "Everyone does it this way, but I think X is important."

You can take your learning and create a new language or framework based on your experiences and opinions working in another.

You develop your own writing style.

LLM cuts out this chance to develop.

---

Images, prose, (maybe) code are not the result of computation.

Two different people compute the same thing they get the same answer. When I ask different people to write the same thing I get wildly different answers.

Sure ChatGPT may give different answers, but they will always be in the ChatGPT style (or parroting the style of an existing someone).

"ChatGPT will get started and I'll edit my voice into what it generated" is not how writing works.

It's difficult for me to see how a world where people are communicating back and forth with the most statistically likely manner is good

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#186

Post by capableweb »

kristiandupont wrote: post #107
capableweb wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked with teams that used Copilot. They claim it's great "Hey, now I don't have to actually spend any time writing all this boilerplate!" while for me, the person who has to review their code before releasing stuff, easier ways of writing boilerplate is not a positive, it's a negative. If writing boilerplate becomes effortless, then you'll write more of it, instead of feeling the pain of writing it and then tr…

>the increase of boilerplate have been immersive Has it really? Or are you worried that this is something that will happen? Of course I don't know how other people use it but I find that it's very much like having a fairly skilled pair programmer on board. I still need to do a lot of work but I get genuine help. I don't find that I personally write more boilerplate code than before, every programming principle applie…

I wrote it in past tense, it's based on actual situations :) If you don't believe what I write, I guess it doesn't matter what I write now. Regardless.

One simple example that I've had to reject more than once.

- Function 1 does something

- Developer needs something like Function 1 but minor change

- Developer starts typing name of function which has a similar name to Function 1, but again, minor difference

- Copilot helpfully suggests copy-pasting Function 1 but with the small change incorporated

- Developer accepts it, commits and sends the patch my way

Rather than extracting the common behavior into it's own function and call that from both of them, refactors which Copilot doesn't suggest, the developers is fine with just copy-pasting the function.

Now we have to maintain two full slightly different functions, rather than 1 full functions + 2 minor ones.

Obviously a small example, and it wouldn't be worth extracting it the first time it happens or on a smaller scale. But once you have entire teams doing something like this, it becomes a bit harder to justify copy-paste approach, especially when you want the codebase not to evolve to complete spaghetti.

And finally, I'm not blaming the tool, it's not Copilots fault. But it does seem to have made developers who rely on it think less, compared to the ones that don't.

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#187

Post by blueblob »

sfpotter wrote: post #106
blueblob wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you been around people who say "fake meat?" Every time I've heard it, it was said derisively and implied fraudulent meat.

Yes. I’ve heard loads of people refer to it as fake without an implied pejorative meaning.

The people I know that like it use artificial and the people that won't try it use fake.

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#188

Post by vinnydiehl »

joyeuse6701 wrote: post #156
traceroute66 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The "I" in AI is just complete bullshit and I can't understand why so many people are in a awe I agree. And the worst thing is that the bullshit hype comes round every decade or so, and people run around like headless chickens insisting that "this time its different", and "this time its the REAL THING". As you say, first(ish) there was ELIZA. Than this that and everything else. Then Autonomy and all that dot-com er…

This is not always true, see Chess.

AlphaGo as well. A few years back people were saying AI could never come close to beating a human at Go.

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#189

Post by mattbrewsbytes »

Its the next hype train since the blockchain/crypto/nft's hype train. The crypto train has arrived at its overheated, decentralized set of train stations that all have remnants of fraudsters, high end GPU boxes scattered about, torn up flyers with the promise of untold riches, people scampering about in the shadows muttering "defi" to themselves, people getting carted off in handcuffs.

Where will the AI hype train go? The internet as we know it already has so much SEO engineered content and content producers chasing that sweet, sweet advertising money that they could all be replaced by mediocre, half-true, outdated content created by bots. So do we have to wait until our refrigerators are "AI powered, predicts your groceries for you!" in order to see the usefulness?

Re: Ask HN: Is anyone else getting AI fatigue?

#190

Post by barrell »

goolulusaurs wrote: post #130

There is a lot of negativity towards the idea of AI in this thread, and I feel like someone has to say it: it is quite likely that in the near future computers will be better than almost all humans at almost all cognitive tasks. If you have a task or are trying to accomplish something, and the way you do it is by moving a mouse around or typing on a keyboard then it is very likely that an AI will be able to do that t…

I think this sentiment that this will happen in the "near future" is the cause for exactly the sort of fatigue the author is talking about.

If you mean in the next year or two, I hate to disappoint you, but barring some massive leap forward, you are going to be wrong.

If you mean in the next hundred years, or maybe sometime in our lifetimes, sure. The chances it looks anything like chatGPT or GPT3 now though is laughable.

This isn't the future. This is a small glimpse into a potential future down the line, but everyone is talking like developers/designers/creatives/humans are already obsolete.

Post reply on HN