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

AI won't steal your job, people leveraging AI will

cmte.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 496 posts

Re: AI won't steal your job, people leveraging AI will

#481

Post by pnt12 »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #247
buf wrote: post #2

There are two types of people: 1. People afraid AI will take their jobs 2. People using AI to take people's jobs

The language is all wrong here. You don't own your job. You are not entitled to perpetual payment for whatever it is you are doing. A job is not a possession. You are not being robbed of your job. You simply do labor in exchange for money based on the value of that labor. And sometimes you do that under some long term arrangement with an employer and sometimes based on more short term arrangements. Either way, the ar…

This ignores the whole human part of a job.

Many people are wage slaves: if they're job is gone, they have a big trouble. That's why they're scared of AI, that's why so many news count the potential jobs cuts: more fear means more clicks.

There's also a lot of inequality, and AIs will push for a bigger gap, not smaller. If everyone is 20% more productive, does everyone get a 20% raise? Historically, no: the company gets the extra profit.

So there's more to discuss than free market 101s, which don't capture the whole complexity of the world.

Re: AI won't steal your job, people leveraging AI will

#482

Post by gavinhoward »

lolsowrong wrote: post #476
gavinhoward wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Consider a theoretical world where people who are shorter always have bigger feet. Ben is taller than Paul, and Paul is taller than Andrew. Steve is shorter than Andrew. Everyone walks the same number of steps each day. All other things being equal, who would step on the most bugs and why?" Because Ben is the tallest, his feet are the biggest, and because he takes the same amount of steps as the others, the amount…

“In this theoretical world, shorter people have bigger feet. Given the information provided, we can deduce the following height order: Ben (tallest) Paul Andrew Steve (shortest) Since shorter people have bigger feet in this world, we can also deduce the following order for foot size: Steve (biggest feet) Andrew Paul Ben (smallest feet) Assuming that everyone walks the same number of steps each day and all other thing…

My bad. I would have if I hadn't gotten mixed up on the shorter vs taller. You know this too.

And GPT4 didn't solve it correctly. It's a probability, not a certainty, that the shortest person will step on more bugs.

Re: AI won't steal your job, people leveraging AI will

#483

Post by gavinhoward »

fl7305 wrote: post #474
gavinhoward wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To demonstrate that LLM's are Turing-complete, give them a small program and some inputs, then tell them to tell you the outputs for each of the inputs. In order to be Turing-complete, they would need to have edges between nodes (I don't know what they are called in ML parlance) that can go to previous nodes, as well as edges that are only conditionally taken. > They exhibit intelligence in that they can understand a…

> give them a small program and some inputs, then tell them to tell you the outputs for each of the inputs I just tried this with all three versions of ChatGPT (3.5 legacy, 3.5, 4), and they all did it correctly. >In order to be Turing-complete, they would need to have edges between nodes (I don't know what they are called in ML parlance) that can go to previous nodes, as well as edges that are only conditionally tak…

What program did you give it? The program would need a while loop and an if statement to show Turing-completeness.

Re: AI won't steal your job, people leveraging AI will

#484

Post by gavinhoward »

fl7305 wrote: post #477
gavinhoward wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we're close enough to an understanding that I'll let you have the last word, except to correct one more misunderstanding. My objection to ChatGPT is yes, about generating full sentences. I object to it for many reasons, but not necessarily just because it's rude. My biggest concern is actually that it takes out the voice of the human. I have a hard enough time figuring out what people are thinking in person (…

> figuring out what people are thinking in person Have you seen the latest research, where GPT-4 is shown to have "Theory of Mind"-like ability (what people are thinking) at a human 7-year old level? https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.02083

Didn't see it, but they only use one type of test to test theory of mind. Excuse me if I'm skeptical that that proves it has theory of mind.

And that certainly doesn't help me with theory of mind problems.

Re: AI won't steal your job, people leveraging AI will

#485

Post by gavinhoward »

carlosjobim wrote: post #470
gavinhoward wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And my bet is that they will not, long term. If you use "AI" to increase productivity, you're doing it by reviewing the code from the "AI" less than you would your own. That lack of review, and testing, will slow down velocity over time as the software becomes untenable, unmanageable, and too complicated to understand. Meanwhile, my slow velocity at first will result in great design and little technical debt. Eventua…

There exists a world outside of programming. I've been using "AI" every day in my work for some time, and it's an essential tool by now. It's proven.

What is your work?

I bet your work is less good the more you rely on it.

Re: AI won't steal your job, people leveraging AI will

#486

Post by gavinhoward »

m348e912 wrote: post #471
gavinhoward wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've now watched that video, and I'm going to say what I disagree with. First, he claims that Copilot/GPT only needs more data and more compute to get better. I disagree. It needs both, for sure, but I think it needs more. Also, it won't get any more data! As LLM's are used more and more, the data fed in will be more and more like what they would generate anyway, which will lead to the models overfitting on things an…

Interesting summary and rebuttal. Appreciate you taking the time to watch the video I linked. >>He claims they have reasoning capabilities. I think here you touch on the crux of LLM conversation. In my limited experience with GPT, it does appear to have some basic reasoning ability, but that could be that it's really good at regurgitating its trained dataset and it just appears that it's reasoning. I think over time…

> I think over time we'll be able to sort this question out.

I hope so.

Re: AI won't steal your job, people leveraging AI will

#487

Post by carlosjobim »

gavinhoward wrote: post #485
carlosjobim wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There exists a world outside of programming. I've been using "AI" every day in my work for some time, and it's an essential tool by now. It's proven.

What is your work? I bet your work is less good the more you rely on it.

I use AI to communicate and close sales with clients in languages I don't understand. It would be impossible for me to learn all languages, and too expensive and slow to hire professional translators. The AI simply works and has been reliable for years by now.

Re: AI won't steal your job, people leveraging AI will

#489

Post by Closi »

gavinhoward wrote: post #482
lolsowrong wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“In this theoretical world, shorter people have bigger feet. Given the information provided, we can deduce the following height order: Ben (tallest) Paul Andrew Steve (shortest) Since shorter people have bigger feet in this world, we can also deduce the following order for foot size: Steve (biggest feet) Andrew Paul Ben (smallest feet) Assuming that everyone walks the same number of steps each day and all other thing…

My bad. I would have if I hadn't gotten mixed up on the shorter vs taller. You know this too. And GPT4 didn't solve it correctly. It's a probability , not a certainty, that the shortest person will step on more bugs.

Sure, you would have got it right if you didn't get it wrong.

At the very least, this should be evidence that the problem wasn't a totally-trivial easy pre-kintergarden level problem though, and it did manage to correctly solve it.

It required understanding new axioms (smaller = bigger feet) and infering that people with bigger feet would crush more bugs without this being mentioned in the challenge.

Your dismissal that the AI messed up because it didn't phrase the correct answer back in the way you liked is a little harsh IMO, as the AI's explanation does make it clear it is basing it on likelihoods ("the person with the biggest feet would be more likely...").

Re: AI won't steal your job, people leveraging AI will

#490

Post by lolsowrong »

gavinhoward wrote: post #482
lolsowrong wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“In this theoretical world, shorter people have bigger feet. Given the information provided, we can deduce the following height order: Ben (tallest) Paul Andrew Steve (shortest) Since shorter people have bigger feet in this world, we can also deduce the following order for foot size: Steve (biggest feet) Andrew Paul Ben (smallest feet) Assuming that everyone walks the same number of steps each day and all other thing…

My bad. I would have if I hadn't gotten mixed up on the shorter vs taller. You know this too. And GPT4 didn't solve it correctly. It's a probability , not a certainty, that the shortest person will step on more bugs.

That mix up must be the human touch you’ve spoken so highly of.
Post reply on HN