Live data from Hacker News

I Am Tired of AI

ontestautomation.com

961–970 of 1001 posts

Re: I Am Tired of AI

#962
post #940

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that does not prove anything. We don't know where we are on the AI-power scale currently. "Superintelligence", whatever that means, could be 1 year or 1000 years away at our current progress, and we wouldn't know until we reach it.

50 years ago we could rather confidently say that "Superintelligence" was absolutely not happening next year, and was realistically decades ago. If we can say "it could be next year", then things have changed radically and we're clearly a lot closer - even if we still don't know how far we have to go. A thousand years ago we hadn't invented electricity, democracy, or science. I really don't think we're a thousand yea…

Umm, customary, tongue-in-cheek reference to McCarthy's proposal for a 10 person research team to solve AI in 2 months (over the Summers)[1]. This was ~70 years ago :)

Not saying we're in necessarily the same situation. But it remains difficult to evaluate effort required for actual progress.

[1]: https://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmo...

Re: I Am Tired of AI

#963

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"They're really good at some things, terrible at others, and prone to doing something totally wrong some fraction of the time." I agree 100% with this sentiment, but, it also is a decent description of individual humans. This is what processes and control systems/controls are for. These are evolving at a slower pace than the LLMs themselves at the moment so we're looking to the LLM to be its own control. I don't thin…

>> I agree 100% with this sentiment, but, it also is a decent description of individual humans. Why would that be a good thing? The big thing with computers is that they are reliable in ways that humans simply can't ever be. Why is it suddenly a success to make them just as unreliable as humans?

I thought the big thing with computers is that they are much cheaper than humans.

If we are evaluating LLM suitability for tasks typically performed by humans, we should judge them by the same standards we judge humans. That means it's OK to make mistakes sometimes.

Re: I Am Tired of AI

#964

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s probably generally irrelevant what they can do today, or what you’ve seen so far. This is conceptually essentially Moore’s law, but about every 5.5 months. That’s the only thing that matters at this stage. I watched everyone make the same arguments about the general Internet, and then the Web, then mobile, then Bitcoin. It’s just a toy. It’s not that useful. Is this supposed to be the revolution? It uses too muc…

Speaking of the iPhone, I just ugpraded to the 16 Pro because I want to try out the new Apple Intelligence features. As soon as I saw integrated voice+text LLM demos, my first thought was that this was precisely the technology needed to make assistants like Siri not total garbage. Sure, Apple's version 1.0 will have a lot of rough edges, but they'll be smoothed out. In a few versions it'll be like something out of St…

The issue with appointments is the provider needs to be integrated into the system. Apple can’t do that on their own. It would have to be more like the roll out of CarPlay. A couple partners at launch, a lot of nothing for several years, and eventually is a lot of places, but still not universal.

I could see something like Uber or Uber Eats trying to be early on something like this, since they already standardized the ordering for all the restaurants in their app. Scheduling systems are all over the place.

Re: I Am Tired of AI

#965

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extrapolation of past progress isn't evidence.

You don't have to extrapolate. There's a frenzy of talent being applied to this problem, it's drawing more brainpower the more progress that is made. Young people see this as one of the most interesting, prestigious, and best-paying fields to work in. A lot of these researchers are really talented, and are doing more than just scaling up. They're pushing at the frontiers in every direction, and finding methods that w…

I do think the Digital realm, where the cost of failure and iteration is quite low, will proceed rapidly. We can brute force with a lot of compute to success, and the cost of each failed attempt is low. Most of these models are just large brute force probabilistic models in any event - efficient AI has not yet been achieved but maybe that doesn't matter.

Not sure if that same pace applies to the physical realm where costs are high (resources, energy, pollution, etc), and the risk of getting it wrong could mean a lot of negative consequences. e.g. I'm handling construction materials, and the robot trips on a barely noticeable rock leaking paint, petrol, etc onto the ground costing more than just the initial cost of materials but cleanup as well.

This creates a potential future outcome (if I can be so bold as to extrapolate with the dangers that has) that this "frenzy of talent" as you put it will innovate themselves out of a job with some may cash out in the short term closing the gate behind them. What's left is ironically the people that can sell, convince, manipulate and work in the physical world at least for the short and medium term. AI can't fix the scarcity of the physical that easily (e.g. land, nutrients, etc). Those people who still command scarcity will get the main rewards of AI in our capital system as value/economic surplus moves to the resources that are scarce and have advantage via relative price adjustments.

Typically people had three different strengths - physical (strength and dexterity), emotional IQ, and intelligence/problem solving. The new world of AI at least in the medium term (10-20 years) will tilt the value away from the latter into the former (physical) - IMO a reversal of the last century of change. May make more sense to get good at gym class and get a trade rather than study math in the future for example. Intelligence will be in abundance, and become a commodity. This potential outcome does alarm me not just from a job perspective, but in terms of fake content, lack of human connection, lack of value of intelligence in general (you will find people with high IQ's lose respect from society in general), social mobility, etc. I can see a potential to the old world where lords that command scarcity (e.g. landlords) command peasants again - reversing the gains of the industrial revolution as an extreme case depending on general AI progress (not LLMs). For people who's value is more in capital or land vs labor, AI seems like a dream future IMO.

There's potential good here, but sadly I'm alarmed because the likelihood that the human race aligns to achieve it is low (the tragedy of the commons problem). It is much easier, and more likely, certain groups use it and target people of value economically now, but with little power (i.e the middle class). The chance of new weapons, economic displacement, fake news, etc for me trumps a voice/chat bot and a fancy image generator. The "adjustment period" is critical to manage; and I think climate change, and other broader issues tells us sadly IMO our likely success in doing this.

Re: I Am Tired of AI

#966
post #957

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> blockchain and no-trust decentralization has so much promise I've been hearing this for the past 5 years, yet nothing of practical use based on blockchains has materialized yet.

you dont think an open finance network that's accessible for anyone with an internet connection is useful? your westernness is showing go ask SA or Africa how useful it is that they arent restricted by insane dictatorial capital controls anymore

Indeed. Decentralised currency is at least a technology that can power the individual at times, rather than say governments, big corps, etc especially in certain countries. Yes it didn't change as much as was marketed but I don't see that as a bad thing. Its still a "tool" that people can use, in some cases to enable use cases they couldn't do or didn't have the freedom to do before.

AI, given its requirements for large computation and money, and its ability to make easily available intelligence to certain groups, IMO has a real potential to do the exact opposite - take away power from individuals especially if they are middle class or below. In the wrong hands it can definitely destroy openness and freedom.

Even if it is "Open" AI, for most of society their ability to offer labor and intelligence/brain power is the only thing they can offer to gain wealth and sustenance - making it a commodity tilts the power scales. If it changes even a slice of what it is marketed at; there are real risks for current society. Even if it increases production of certain goods, it won't increase production of the goods the ultra wealthy tend to hold (physical capital, land, etc) making them as a proportion even more wealthy. This is especially true if AI doesn't end up working in the physical realm quick enough. The benefits seem more like novelties to most individuals that they could do without where to large corps and ultra wealthy individuals the the benefits IMO are much more obvious with AI (e.g. we finally don't need workers). Surveillance, control, persuasion, propaganda, mass uselessness of most of the population, medical advances for the ultra wealthy, weapons, etc can now be done at almost infinite scale and with great detail. If it ever gets to the point of obsoleting human intelligence would be a very interesting adjustment period for humanity.

The flaw isn't the technology; its the likely use of it by humans and their nature. Not saying LLMs are there yet or even if they are the architecture to do this, but agentic behaviour and running corporations (as OpenAI makes its goal on their presentation slides to be) seem to be a way to rid many of the need for other people in general (to help produce, manage, invent and control). That could be a good or bad thing, depending on how we manage it but one thing it wouldn't be would be simple.

Re: I Am Tired of AI

#967
post #959

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you measure the value of bitcoin, if not by its market cap? Do you interview everyone and ask them how much they're willing to pay for a service that allows them to transfer money digitally without institutional oversight/bureaucracy?

The amount of power being used to support a system that can do 5 transactions a second is disgusting.

As opposed to what other system that can do a single transaction in any time frame without individual or organizational interdiction?

Re: I Am Tired of AI

#968

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s probably generally irrelevant what they can do today, or what you’ve seen so far. This is conceptually essentially Moore’s law, but about every 5.5 months. That’s the only thing that matters at this stage. I watched everyone make the same arguments about the general Internet, and then the Web, then mobile, then Bitcoin. It’s just a toy. It’s not that useful. Is this supposed to be the revolution? It uses too muc…

I am generally on your side of this debate, but Bitcoin is a reference that is in favor of the opposite position. Crypto is/was all hype. It's a speculative investment, that's all atm.

Bitcoin is the only really useful crypto that fundamentally has no reason to die because of basic economics. It is fundamentally the only hard currency we have ever created and that's why it is revolutionary

Re: I Am Tired of AI

#969

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am generally on your side of this debate, but Bitcoin is a reference that is in favor of the opposite position. Crypto is/was all hype. It's a speculative investment, that's all atm.

Bitcoin is the only really useful crypto that fundamentally has no reason to die because of basic economics. It is fundamentally the only hard currency we have ever created and that's why it is revolutionary

I find it hard to accept the statement that "[bitcoin] is fundamentally the only hard currency we have ever created". Is it saying that gold back currencies were not created by us, or that gold isn't hard enough?

Additionally, there's a good reason we moved off deflationary hard currencies and onto inflationary fiat currencies. Bitcoin acts more like a commodity than a medium of exchange. People tend to buy it, hold it, and then eventually cash out. If I am given a bunch of bitcoin, the incentive is for me not to spend it, but rather keep it close and wait for it to appreciate — what good is a currency that people don't spend?

Also I find it weird when I read that due to its mathematically proven finite supply it is basic economics that gives it value. Value in modern economics is defined as what people are willing to give up to obtain that thing. Right now, people are willing to give up a lot for bitcoin, but mainly because other people are also willing to give up a lot for bitcoin, which gives it value.

It's a remarkable piece of engineering that has enabled this (solving the double spending problem especially), but it doesn't have inherent value in and if itself. There are many finite things in the world that are not valued as highly as bitcoin is. There's a finite number of beanie babies, a finite number is cassette tapes, a finite number of blockbuster coupons...

Gold is similar — should we all agree tomorrow that gold sucks and should never be regarded as a precious metal, then it won't lose its value completely (there's only a finite amount of it, and some people will still want it, e.g. for making connectors). But its current valuation is far higher than it would be for its scarcity alone — people mainly want gold, because other people want gold.

Re: I Am Tired of AI

#970
Or are you just going to read prompt results out loud for 40 minutes, too? I hope not, but we will not take the chance.

I did actually attend a talk at a conference a few years ago where someone did this. It wasn't with LLMs, but with a Markov chain, and it was art. A bizarre experience, but unfortunately not recorded (at the request of the speaker).

Obviously the big difference was that this was not kept secret at all (indeed, some of the generated prompts included sections where he was instructed to show his speaker notes to the audience, where we could see the generated text scroll up the screen).

Post reply on HN