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

Rodney Brooks on limitations of generative AI

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 202 posts

Re: Rodney Brooks on limitations of generative AI

#71

Post by hanche »

albert_e wrote: post #23
roenxi wrote: post #9

> He uses the iPod as an example. For a few iterations, it did in fact double in storage size from 10 all the way to 160GB. If it had continued on that trajectory, he figured out we would have an iPod with 160TB of storage by 2017, but of course we didn’t. I think Brooks' opinions will age poorly, but if anyone doesn't already know all the arguments for that they aren't interested in learning them now. This quote see…

> we would have an iPod with 160TB of storage by 2017, but of course we didn’t. 160 Tera Bytes to store what? I probably would never listen to more than a few GBs of high fidelity music in my life time. Why would anyone keep investing in exponential growth or even linear growth beyond a point of utility and economic sense. This can be extrapolated to miniaturization also ... why is a personal computer not smaller tha…

> I probably would never listen to more than a few GBs of high fidelity music in my life time.

FWIW, I currently have about 100 GB of music on my phone. And that is in a fairly high quality AAC format. Converted to lossless, it might be about five times that size? I don't even think of my music collection as all that extensive. But still, 160 TB would be a different ball game altogether. For sure, there is no mass market for music players with that sort of capacity. (Especially now that streaming is taking over.)

Re: Rodney Brooks on limitations of generative AI

#72

Post by MattPalmer1086 »

aurareturn wrote: post #15
fxtentacle wrote: post #13

To me, this reads like a very reasonable take. He suggests to limit the scope of the AI problem, add manual overrides in case there are unexpected situations, and he (rightly, in my opinion) predicts that the business case for exponentially scaling LLM models isn't there. With that context, I like his iPod example. Apple probably could have made a 3TB iPod to stick to Moore's law for another few years, but after they…

I’m still waiting for SalesForce to integrate an LLM into Slack so I can ask it business logic and decisions long lost. Still waiting for Microsoft to integrate an LLM into outlook so I can get a summary of a 20 email long chain I just got CCed into. I don’t think the iPod comparison is a valid one. People only have so much time to listen to music. Past a certain point, no one has enough good music they like to put i…

Haha, I'd be happy if outlook just integrated a search that actually works.

Most of outlook search results aren't even relevant, and it regularly misses things I know are there. Literally the most useless search I've ever had to use.

Re: Rodney Brooks on limitations of generative AI

#74

Post by roenxi »

albert_e wrote: post #70
roenxi wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguing from a lack of personal imagination is not a strong position. It is the people with ideas who are responsible for finding uses for resources. They've succeeded every other time they were given an excess of storage space; I'm still not sure how I manage to use up all the TB of storage I've bought over the years. Maybe we store a local copy of a personal universe for you to test ideas out in, I dunno. There'll…

Storage did become cheaper and more compact. Both flash drives and SD cards offer this functionality and showed significant improvements. Whatever innovative use cases people could come up with to store TBs of data in physical portable format is served by these. And along the way the world has shifted to storing data more cheaply and conveniently on the cloud instead. IPod being a special purpose device , with premiu…

> IPod being a special purpose device , with premium pricing...

Well, yes but if we're literally talking the iPod, it has been discontinued. Because it has been replaced by devices - with larger storage, I might note - that do more. I'm working from the assumption that as far as Brooks was talking iPhones basically are iPods. This is why the argument that the tech capped out seems suspect to me. The tech kept improving exponentially and we're still seeing storage space in the iPod niche doubling every few years.

Re: Rodney Brooks on limitations of generative AI

#75

Post by lostmsu »

croes wrote: post #17
roenxi wrote: post #9

> He uses the iPod as an example. For a few iterations, it did in fact double in storage size from 10 all the way to 160GB. If it had continued on that trajectory, he figured out we would have an iPod with 160TB of storage by 2017, but of course we didn’t. I think Brooks' opinions will age poorly, but if anyone doesn't already know all the arguments for that they aren't interested in learning them now. This quote see…

People thought we have FSD now because of the early success, but the last 20% are the hardest. The same is true for LLMs. What they can do is impressive but to fix what they can't will be hard or even impossible.

There was never universally recognized early success in FSD.

Re: Rodney Brooks on limitations of generative AI

#76

Post by lostmsu »

locallost wrote: post #33

After using Copilot that is pretty bad at guessing what I exactly want to do, but still occasionally right on the money and often pretty close: AI is not really AI and it won't kill us all, but the realization is that a lot of work is just repetitive and really not that clever at all. If I think about all the work I did in my life it follows the same pattern: a new way of doing things comes along, then you start figu…

Copilot can not read your mind: that is an impressive argument against AI!

Re: Rodney Brooks on limitations of generative AI

#77

Post by MattPalmer1086 »

oska wrote: post #51
bubblyworld wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll happily engage in specifics if you provide an argument for your position. Here's mine (which is ironically self-defeating but has a grain of truth): single-sentence theories about reality are probably wrong.

I just went back and added a parenthetical statement after my first sentence before seeing this reply (on refresh). > The creation of consciousness is impossible. That's where I'd start my argument. Machines can 'learn', given iterative training and some form of memory but they can not think nor understand. That requires consciousness, and the idea that consciousness can be emergent (which it is my understanding that…

I don't see why consciousness is necessary for thinking.

I would define thinking as the ability to evaluate propositions and evidence and arrive at some potentially useful plan or hypothesis.

I see no reason why a machine could not do this, but without any awareness ("consciousness") of itself doing it.

I also see no fundamental obstacle to true machine awareness either, but given your other responses, we can just disagree on that.

Re: Rodney Brooks on limitations of generative AI

#79

Post by IanCal »

portaouflop wrote: post #3

Let’s call it machine learning, the AI term is just so far from what it actually is

No.

AI is what we've called things far simpler for a far longer time. It's what random users know it as. It's what the marketers sell it as. It's what the academics have used for decades.

You can try and make all of them change the term they use, or just understand it's meaning.

If you do succeed, then brace for a new generation fighting you for calling it learning and coming up with yet another new term that everyone should use.

Re: Rodney Brooks on limitations of generative AI

#80

Post by meiraleal »

oska wrote: post #49
bubblyworld wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's talking about control theory, and other kinds of optimisation systems too. I think AI is a fine blanket term for all of that stuff.

There will never be, and can never be, "artificial intelligence". (The creation of consciousness is impossible.) It's a fun/interesting device in science fiction , just like the concept of golems (animated beings) are in folk tales. But it's complete nonsense to talk about it as a possibility in the real world so yes, the label of 'machine learning' is a far, far better label to use for this powerful and interesting…

> There will never be, and can never be, "artificial intelligence".

And machines can't learn.

Post reply on HN