This is hilariously over-optimistic on the timescales. Like on this timeline we'll have a Mars colony in 10 years, immortality drugs in 15 and Half Life 3 in 20.
AI 2027
31–40 of 641 posts
Re: AI 2027
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
programming
Why would it get 60-80% as good as human programmers (which is what the current state of things feels like to me, as a programmer, using these tools for hours every day), but stop there?
So I think there's an assumption you've made here, that the models are currently "60-80% as good as human programmers".
If you look at code being generated by non-programmers (where you would expect to see these results!), you don't see output that is 60-80% of the output of domain experts (programmers) steering the models.
I think we're extremely imprecise when we communicate in natural language, and this is part of the discrepancy between belief systems.
Will an LLM model read a person's mind about what they want to build better than they can communicate?
That's already what recommender systems (like the TikTok algorithm) do.
But will LLMs be able to orchestrate and fill in the blanks of imprecision in our requests on their own, or will they need human steering?
I think that's where there's a gap in (basically) belief systems of the future.
If we truly get post human-level intelligence everywhere, there is no amount of "preparing" or "working with" the LLMs ahead of time that will save you from being rendered economically useless.
This is mostly a question about how long the moat of human judgement lasts. I think there's an opportunity to work together to make things better than before, using these LLMs as tools that work _with_ us.
Re: AI 2027
#33There's a lot to potentially unpack here, but idk, the idea that humanity entering hell (extermination) or heaven (brain uploading; aging cure) is whether or not we listen to AI safety researchers for a few months makes me question whether it's really worth unpacking.
If we don't do it, someone else will.
Which? Exterminate humanity or cure aging?
Re: AI 2027
#34Ok, I'll bite. I predict that everything in this article is horse manure. AGI will not happen. LLMs will be tools, that can automate away stuff, like today and they will get slightly, or quite a bit better at it. That will be all. See you in two years, I'm excited what will be the truth.
People want to live their lives free of finance and centralized personal information.
If you think most people like this stuff you're living in a bubble. I use it every day but the vast majority of people have no interest in using these nightmares of philip k dick imagined by silicon dreamers.
Re: AI 2027
#35Feels reasonable in the first few paragraphs, then quickly starts reading like science fiction. Would love to read a perspective examining "what is the slowest reasonable pace of development we could expect." This feels to me like the fastest (unreasonable) trajectory we could expect.
No one knows what will happen. But these thought experiments can be useful as a critical thinking practice.
Re: AI 2027
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
programming
Why would it get 60-80% as good as human programmers (which is what the current state of things feels like to me, as a programmer, using these tools for hours every day), but stop there?
Try this, launch Cursor.
Type: print all prime numbers which are divisible by 3 up to 1M
The result is that it will do a sieve. There's no need for this, it's just 3.
Re: AI 2027
#37This is hilariously over-optimistic on the timescales. Like on this timeline we'll have a Mars colony in 10 years, immortality drugs in 15 and Half Life 3 in 20.
You forgot fusion energy
Re: AI 2027
#38I just spent some time trying to make claude and gemini make a violin plot of some polar dataframe. I've never used it and it's just for prototyping so i just went "apply a log to the values and make a violin plot of this polars dataframe". ANd had to iterate with them for 4/5 times each. Gemini got it right but then used deprecated methods I might be doing llm wrong, but i just can't get how people might actually do…
all tech hype cycles are a bit like this. when you were born people were predicting the end of offline shops.
The trough of disillusionment will set in for everybody else in due time.
Re: AI 2027
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would it get 60-80% as good as human programmers (which is what the current state of things feels like to me, as a programmer, using these tools for hours every day), but stop there?
It's 60-80% as good as Stack Overflow copy-pasting programmers, sure, but those programmers were already providing questionable value. It's nowhere near as good as someone actually building and maintaining systems. It's barely able to vomit out an MVP and it's almost never capable of making a meaningful change to that MVP. If your experiences have been different that's fine, but in my day job I am spending more and m…
I'm pretty good at what I do, at least according to myself and the people I work with, and I'm comparing its capabilities (the latest version of Claude used as an agent inside Cursor) to myself. It can't fully do things on its own and makes mistakes, but it can do a lot.
But suppose you're right, it's 60% as good as "stackoverflow copy-pasting programmers". Isn't that a pretty insanely impressive milestone to just dismiss?
And why would it just get to this point, and then stop? Like, we can all see AIs continuously beating the benchmarks, and the progress feels very fast in terms of experience of using it as a user.
I'd need to hear a pretty compelling argument to believe that it'll suddenly stop, something more compelling than "well, it's not very good yet, therefore it won't be any better", or "Sam Altman is lying to us because incentives".
Sure, it can slow down somewhat because of the exponentially increasing compute costs, but that's assuming no more algorithmic progress, no more compute progress, and no more increases in the capital that flows into this field (I find that hard to believe).
Re: AI 2027
#402015: We will have FSD(full autonomy) by 2017