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

Do AI companies work?

benn.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 457 posts

Re: Do AI companies work?

#71

Post by akomtu »

llm_trw wrote: post #31

I've found that everything that works stops being called AI. Logic programming? AI until SQL came out. Now it's not AI. OCR, computer algebra systems, voice recognition, checkers, machine translation, go, natural language search. All solved, all not AI any more yet all were AI before they got solved by AI researchers. There's even a name for it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect?utm_source=perplex...

People innately believe that intelligence isn't an algorithm. When a complex problem presents itself for the first time, people think "oh, this must be so complex that no algorithm can solve it, only AI," and when an algorithmic solution is found, people realise that the problem isn't that complex.

Indeed, if AI was an algorithm, imagine what would it feel like to be like one: at every step of your thinking process you are dragged by the iron hand of the algorithm, you have no agency in decision making, for every step is pre-determined already, and you're left the role of an observer. The algorithm leaves no room for intelligence.

Re: Do AI companies work?

#72

Post by nine_k »

analog31 wrote: post #40
llm_trw wrote: post #31

I've found that everything that works stops being called AI. Logic programming? AI until SQL came out. Now it's not AI. OCR, computer algebra systems, voice recognition, checkers, machine translation, go, natural language search. All solved, all not AI any more yet all were AI before they got solved by AI researchers. There's even a name for it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect?utm_source=perplex...

On an amusing note, I've read something similar: Everything that works stops being called philosophy. Science and math being the two familiar examples.

I won't say that things like stoicism or humanism never worked. But they never got to the level of strict logical or experimental verifiability. Physics may be hard science, but the very notion of hard science, hypotheses, demand to replicate, demand to be able to falsify, etc, are all philosophy.

Re: Do AI companies work?

#73

Post by RHSeeger »

hollerith wrote: post #62
iterateoften wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember the original Lisp manual describes it as a symbolic language for “AI”

Lisp's inventor, John McCarthy, was an AI researcher. (The US government started funding AI research in the 1950s, expecting progress to be much faster than it actually was.)

When I studied AI in grad school (decades ago), most of the classes were done in Lisp.

Re: Do AI companies work?

#74

Post by nine_k »

cageface wrote: post #35

It seems very difficult to build a moat around a product when the product is supposed to be a generally capable tool and the input is English text. The more truly generally intelligent these models get the more interchangeable they become. It's too easy to swap one out for another.

Humans are the ultimate generally intelligent agents available on this planet. Even though most of them (us) are replaceable for mundane tasks, quite some are unique enough so that people seek their particular services and no one else's. And this is among the pool of about eight billion such agents.

Re: Do AI companies work?

#75

Post by jsnell »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #63
jsnell wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would being the first at the (horizontal) asymptote mean owning a profitable market? In six months, somebody else is at the asymptote as well. If different models are mostly interchangable quality-wise, then the decision will mostly be made on price. For a market to be both winner-take-all as well as lucrative, you need some kind of a feedback cycle from network effets, economies of scale, or maybe even really br…

> In six months, somebody else is at the asymptote as well But you were there first. That gives you all of a first mover’s advantages plus the profits from that period to set the terms of the market sharing. None of this requires winner-takes-all economics. And given OpenAI’s revenues, it’s unclear they need to be the sole winner to make an investment thesis work.

Ok, so let's say I was there first. But now you're offering a product that's (by definition) just as good for a lower price. Why will the users stick to my product rather than paying your cheaper prices?

As for your second point, the profits from the first six months are going to be basically nothing compared to the years of massive investments needed to make this happen. Why would those profits give any kind of sustainable leverage?

Re: Do AI companies work?

#76

Post by mvdtnz »

AI_beffr wrote: post #6

the hype will never die. all the smartest people in industry and government believe that there is a very high probability that this technology is near the edge of starting the AGI landslide. you dont need AGI to start the AGI landslide, you just need AI tools that are smart enough to automate the process of discovering and building the first AGI models. every conceivable heuristic indicates that we are near the edge.…

I can't believe I'm reading this kind of stuff about crappy chat bots. The world has lost its mind.

Re: Do AI companies work?

#77

Post by JumpCrisscross »

sqeaky wrote: post #69
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In six months, somebody else is at the asymptote as well But you were there first. That gives you all of a first mover’s advantages plus the profits from that period to set the terms of the market sharing. None of this requires winner-takes-all economics. And given OpenAI’s revenues, it’s unclear they need to be the sole winner to make an investment thesis work.

The first mover advantage isn't as big an advantage as being the one to monopolize a commodity. While there are some historical advantages to first mover's doing this, it is the common case. I also think that is very nearly a winner take all sort of thing, or at least a very API providers will still matters, if this asymptotes. Compare this to toilet paper or fuel, if AI asymptotes and everyone catches up in 6 months…

If there is no niche, first-mover is useless. But if there is value to be had, it’s valuable. Fighting to tread water in a moving stream with the expectation the flow will slow isn’t irrational.

Re: Do AI companies work?

#78

Post by cageface »

nine_k wrote: post #74
cageface wrote: post #35

It seems very difficult to build a moat around a product when the product is supposed to be a generally capable tool and the input is English text. The more truly generally intelligent these models get the more interchangeable they become. It's too easy to swap one out for another.

Humans are the ultimate generally intelligent agents available on this planet. Even though most of them (us) are replaceable for mundane tasks, quite some are unique enough so that people seek their particular services and no one else's. And this is among the pool of about eight billion such agents.

How is this relevant to AI? An AI can be trained on the total knowledge of every field.

Re: Do AI companies work?

#79

Post by sqeaky »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #77
sqeaky wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first mover advantage isn't as big an advantage as being the one to monopolize a commodity. While there are some historical advantages to first mover's doing this, it is the common case. I also think that is very nearly a winner take all sort of thing, or at least a very API providers will still matters, if this asymptotes. Compare this to toilet paper or fuel, if AI asymptotes and everyone catches up in 6 months…

If there is no niche, first-mover is useless. But if there is value to be had, it’s valuable. Fighting to tread water in a moving stream with the expectation the flow will slow isn’t irrational.

Are you claiming there is no Niche to making commodities? I haven't really considered it I could see an argument being made either way. Or are you saying that it's a product these API based llms are just not going to be how we use these tools? Or are you saying something else entirely?

Re: Do AI companies work?

#80

Post by nine_k »

cageface wrote: post #78
nine_k wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are the ultimate generally intelligent agents available on this planet. Even though most of them (us) are replaceable for mundane tasks, quite some are unique enough so that people seek their particular services and no one else's. And this is among the pool of about eight billion such agents.

How is this relevant to AI? An AI can be trained on the total knowledge of every field.

It's even more relevant to AI, because the differences between the models (not just training data) may make them pretty uniquely suited to some areas, with any competition being markedly worse (in that area), or at least markedly different. And you only have maybe dozens, not billions, to choose from.
Post reply on HN