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

I Am Tired of AI

ontestautomation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

711–720 of 1001 posts

Re: I Am Tired of AI

#711

Post by DowagerDave »

SllX wrote: post #635
matwood wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can no longer assume that a book is legit simply because it looks legit. The problem is that this has been an issue for a long time. My first interactions with the internet in the 90s came along with the warning "don't automatically trust what you read on the internet". I was speaking to a librarian the other day who teaches incoming freshman how to use LLMs. What was shocking to me is that the librarian said a…

> The problem is that this has been an issue for a long time. My first interactions with the internet in the 90s came along with the warning "don't automatically trust what you read on the internet". I received the same warnings, actually it was more like “don’t trust everything you read on the internet”, but it quickly became apparent that the last three words were redundant, and could have been rephrased more accur…

I feel like there was also a brief window where "many amateur eyes in public" trumped "private experts"; wikipedia, open source software, etc. This doesn't seem the case in a hyper-partisan and bifurcated society where there is little trust.

Re: I Am Tired of AI

#712

Post by talldayo »

amelius wrote: post #707
bloppe wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have been improving a lot, but that improvement is already plateauing and all the fundamental problems have not disappeared. AI needs another architectural breakthrough to keep up the pace of advancement.

If they were plateauing it would mean OpenAI would have lost its headstart wrt the competition, which is not the case I believe.

It's pretty undeniable that OpenAI's lead has been diminished greatly from the GPT-3 days. Back then, they could rely on marketing their coherency and the "true power" of larger models. But today we're starting to see 1B models that are undistinguishable from OpenAI's most advanced chain-of-thought models. From a turing test perspective, I don't think the average person could distinguish between an OpenAI and a Llama 3.2 response.

Re: I Am Tired of AI

#713

Post by bloppe »

amelius wrote: post #707
bloppe wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have been improving a lot, but that improvement is already plateauing and all the fundamental problems have not disappeared. AI needs another architectural breakthrough to keep up the pace of advancement.

If they were plateauing it would mean OpenAI would have lost its headstart wrt the competition, which is not the case I believe.

OpenAI has the biggest appetite for large models. GPT-4 is generally a bit better than Gemini, for example, but that's not because Google can't compete with it. Gemini is orders of magnitude smaller than GPT-4 because if Google were to run a GPT-4-sized model every time somebody searches on Google, they would literally cease to be a profitable company. That's how expensive inference on these ultra-large models is. OpenAI still doesn't really care about burning through hundreds of billions of dollars, but that cannot last forever.

Re: I Am Tired of AI

#714

Post by bloppe »

Animats wrote: post #706
bloppe wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have been improving a lot, but that improvement is already plateauing and all the fundamental problems have not disappeared. AI needs another architectural breakthrough to keep up the pace of advancement.

Yes. Anything on the horizon?

I'm not as up-to-speed on the literature as I used to be (it's gotten a lot harder to keep up), but I certainly haven't heard of any breakthroughs. They tend to be pretty hard to predict and plan for.

I don't think we can continue simply tweaking the transformer architecture to achieve meaningful gains. We will need new architectures, hopefully ones that more closely align with biological intelligence.

In theory, the simplest way to real superhuman AGI would be to start by modeling a real human brain as a physical system at the neural level; a real neural network. What the AI community calls "neural networks" are only very loose approximations of biological neural networks. Real neurons are subject to complex interactions between many different neurotransmitters and neuromodulators and they grow and shift in ways that look nothing like backpropagation. There already exist decently accurate physical models for single neurons, but accurately modeling even C. elegans (as part of the OpenWorm project) is still a way's off. Modeling a full human brain may not be possible within our lifetime, but I also wouldn't rule that out.

And once we can accurately model a real human brain, we can speed it up and make it bigger and apply evolutionary processes to it much faster than natural evolution. To me, that's still the only plausible path to real AGI, and we're really not even close.

Re: I Am Tired of AI

#715

Post by samcat116 »

woah wrote: post #576
layer8 wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can spend my time revieweing and correcting. Do you really like spending most of your time reviewing AI output? I certainly don’t, that’s soul-crushing.

I think there are two types of developers: those who are most excited about building things, and those who are most excited about the craft of programming. If I can build things faster, then I'm happy to spend most of my time reviewing AI code. That doesn't mean that I never write code. Some things the AI is worse at, or need to be exactly write and its faster to do them manually.

I think we could see a lot of these AI code tools start to pivot towards product folks for just this reason. They aren't meant for the people who find craft in what they do.

Re: I Am Tired of AI

#716

Post by StrLght »

coryfklein wrote: post #617
StrLght wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extrapolation of past progress isn't evidence.

Do you expect the hockeystick graph of technological development since the industrial evolution to slow? Or that it will proceed, only without significant advances in AI? Seems like the base case here is for the exponential growth to continue, and you'd need a convincing argument to say otherwise.

Which chart are you referencing exactly? How does it define technological development? It's nearly impossible for me to discuss a chart without knowing what axis refer.

Without specifics all I can say is that I don't acknowledge any measurable benefits of AI (in its' current state) in real world applications. So I'd say I am leaning towards latter.

Re: I Am Tired of AI

#717

Post by 9dev »

cubefox wrote: post #412
9dev wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There will be hardly any, if any, jobs left only a human can do. A highly white-collar perspective. The great irony of technologist-led industrial revolution is that we set out to automate the mundane, physical labor, but instead cannibalised the creative jobs first. It's a wonderful example of Conway's law, as the creators modelled the solution after themselves. However, even with a lot of programmers and lawyers…

Advanced AI will solve robotics as well, and do away with human physical labor.

If that AI is worth more than a dime, it will recognise how incredibly efficient humans are in physical labor, and employ them instead of ”doing away“ with it (whatever that’s even supposed to mean.)

No matter how much you ”solve“ robotics, you’re not going to compete with the result of millions of years of brutal natural selection, the incredible layering of synergies in organisms, the efficiency of the biomass to energy conversion, and the billions of other sophisticated biological systems. It’s all just science fiction and propaganda.

Re: I Am Tired of AI

#718

Post by LeroyRaz »

low_tech_love wrote: post #27

The most depressing thing for me is the feeling that I simply cannot trust anything that has been written in the past 2 years or so and up until the day that I die. It's not so much that I think people have used AI, but that I know they have with a high degree of certainty, and this certainty is converging to 100%, simply because there is no way it will not. If you write regularly and you're not using AI, you simply…

Your take seems hyperbolic.

Until LLMs exceed the very best of human quality there will be human content in all forms of media. This claims follows because there is always (some) demand for top quality content.

I agree that many writers might use LLMs as a tool, but good writers who care about quality will ensure that such use is not detrimental (e.g., using the LLM to identify errors rather than having it draft copy).

Re: I Am Tired of AI

#719

Post by owenpalmer »

Validark wrote: post #242

One thing that I hate about the post-ChatGPT world is that people's genuine words or hand-drawn art can be classified as AI-generated and thrown away instantly. What if I wanted to talk at a conference and used somebody's AI trigger word so they instantly rejected me even if I never touched AI at all? This has already happened in academia where certain professors just dump(ed) their student's essays into ChatGPT and…

As a student, I've intentionally made my writing worse in order to protect myself from being accused of cheating with AI.

Re: I Am Tired of AI

#720

Post by njarboe »

LeroyRaz wrote: post #718
low_tech_love wrote: post #27

The most depressing thing for me is the feeling that I simply cannot trust anything that has been written in the past 2 years or so and up until the day that I die. It's not so much that I think people have used AI, but that I know they have with a high degree of certainty, and this certainty is converging to 100%, simply because there is no way it will not. If you write regularly and you're not using AI, you simply…

Your take seems hyperbolic. Until LLMs exceed the very best of human quality there will be human content in all forms of media. This claims follows because there is always (some) demand for top quality content. I agree that many writers might use LLMs as a tool, but good writers who care about quality will ensure that such use is not detrimental (e.g., using the LLM to identify errors rather than having it draft copy…

Will that happen in 1,2,5,10 or never years?
Post reply on HN