AI 2027 • Hacker News Board

Re: AI 2027

#151

Post by KaiserPro » Thu, Apr 03, 2025, 9:51 PM UTC

> AI has started to take jobs, but has also created new ones.

Yeah nah, theres a key thing missing here, the number of jobs created needs to be more than the ones it's destroyed, and they need to be better paying and happen in time.

History says that actually when this happens, an entire generation is yeeted on to the streets (see powered looms, Jacquard machine, steam powered machine tools) All of that cheap labour needed to power the new towns and cities was created by automation of agriculture and artisan jobs.

Dark satanic mills were fed the decedents of once reasonably prosperous crafts people.

AI as presented here will kneecap the wages of a good proportion of the decent paying jobs we have now. This will cause huge economic disparities, and probably revolution. There is a reason why the royalty of Europe all disappeared when they did...

So no, the stock market will not be growing because of AI, it will be in spite of it.

Plus china knows that unless they can occupy most of its population with some sort of work, they are finished. AI and decent robot automation are an existential threat to the CCP, as much as it is to what ever remains of the "west"

Re: AI 2027

#152

Post by achierius » Thu, Apr 03, 2025, 9:52 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #16

zvitiate wrote: post #15

There'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.

That's obviously not true. Before OpenAI blew the field open, multiple labs -- e.g. Google -- were intentionally holding back their research from the public eye because they thought the world was not ready. Investors were not pouring billions into capabilities. China did not particularly care to focus on this one research area, among many, that the US is still solidly ahead in.

The only reason timelines are as short as they are is because of people at OpenAI and thereafter Anthropic deciding that "they had no choice". They had a choice, and they took the one which has chopped at the very least years off of the time we would otherwise have had to handle all of this. I can barely begin to describe the magnitude of the crime that they have committed -- and so I suggest that you consider that before propagating the same destructive lies that led us here in the first place.

Re: AI 2027

#153

Post by turnsout » Thu, Apr 03, 2025, 9:52 PM UTC

IshKebab wrote: post #31

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.

IMO they haven't even predicted mid-2025.

  > Coding AIs increasingly look like autonomous agents rather than mere assistants: taking instructions via Slack or Teams and making substantial code changes on their own, sometimes saving hours or even days.

Yeah, we are so not there yet.

Re: AI 2027

#154

Post by pixl97 » Thu, Apr 03, 2025, 9:53 PM UTC

throwawaylolllm wrote: post #23

moab wrote: post #13

> "OpenBrain (the leading US AI project) builds AI agents that are good enough to dramatically accelerate their research. The humans, who up until very recently had been the best AI researchers on the planet, sit back and watch the AIs do their jobs, making better and better AI systems." I'm not sure what gives the authors the confidence to predict such statements. Wishful thinking? Worst-case paranoia? I agree that…

It's my belief (and I'm far from the only person who thinks this) that many AI optimists are motivated by an essentially religious belief that you could call Singularitarianism. So "wishful thinking" would be one answer. This document would then be the rough equivalent of a Christian fundamentalist outlining, on the basis of tangentially related news stories, how the Second Coming will come to pass in the next few ye…

Eh, not sure if the second coming is a great analogy. That wholly depends on the whims of a fictional entity performing some unlikely actions.

Instead think of them saying a crusade occurring in the next few years. When the group saying the crusade is coming is spending billions of dollars to trying to make just that occur you no longer have the ability to say it's not going to happen. You are now forced to examine the risks of their actions.

Re: AI 2027

#155

Post by lelandbatey » Thu, Apr 03, 2025, 9:53 PM UTC

HDThoreaun wrote: post #101

henryjcee wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How hard would it be to automate these iterations? The fact that we're no closer to doing this than we were when chatgpt launched suggests that it's really hard. If anything I think it's _the_ hard bit vs. building something that generates plausible text. Solving this for the general case is imo a completely different problem to being able to generate plausible text in the general case.

This is not true. The chain of logic models are able to check their work and try again given enough compute.

They can check their work and try again an infinite number of times, but the rate at which they succeed seems to just get worse and worse the further from the beaten path (of existing code from existing solutions) that they stray.

Re: AI 2027

#156

Post by achierius » Thu, Apr 03, 2025, 9:54 PM UTC

atemerev wrote: post #55

What is this, some OpenAI employee fan fiction? Did Sam himself write this? OpenAI models are not even SOTA, except that new-ish style transfer / illustration thing that made all us living in Ghibli world for a few days. R1 is _better_ than o1, and open-weights. GPT-4.5 is disappointing, except for a few narrow areas where it excels. DeepResearch is impressive though, but the moat is in tight web search / Google Scho…

> superpersuasion _already works_

Is this demonstrated in any public research? Unless you just mean something like "good at persuading" -- which is different from my understanding of the term -- I find this hard to believe.

Re: AI 2027

#157

Post by AgentME » Thu, Apr 03, 2025, 9:57 PM UTC

goatlover wrote: post #146

reducesuffering wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will people finally wake up that the AGI X-Risk people have been right and we’re rapidly approaching a really fucking big deal? This forum has been so behind for too long. Sama has been saying this a decade now: “Development of Superhuman machine intelligence is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity” 2015 https://blog.samaltman.com/machine-intelligence-part-1 Hinton, Ilya, Dario Amodei,…

> "Development of Superhuman machine intelligence is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity” If that's really true, why is there such a big push to rapidly improve AI? I'm guessing OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, Apple, Meta, Boston Dynamics don't really believe this. They believe AI will make them billions. What is OpenAI's definition of AGI? A model that makes $100 billion?

Because they also believe the development of superhuman machine intelligence will probably be the greatest invention for humanity. The possible upsides and downsides are both staggeringly huge and uncertain.

Re: AI 2027

#158

Post by pixl97 » Thu, Apr 03, 2025, 10:01 PM UTC

amarcheschi wrote: post #62

dinfinity wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you're most likely doing it wrong. I would like to add that "vibe coding" is a dreadful term thought up by someone who is arguably not very good at software engineering, as talented as he may be in other respects. The term has become a misleading and frankly pejorative term. A better, more neutral one is AI assisted software engineering. This is an article that describes a pretty good approach for that: https://…

You see, the issue I get petty about is that Ai is advertised as the one ring to rule them all software. VCs creaming themselves at the thought of not having to pay developers and using natural language. But then, you have to still adapt to the Ai, and not vice versa. "you're doing it wrong". This is not the idea that VCs bros are selling Then, I absolutely love being aided by llms for my day to day tasks. I'm much m…

>But, it's no miracle.

All I can say to this is fucking good!

Lets imagine we got AGI at the start of 2022. I'm talking about human level+ as good as you coding and reasoning AI that works well on the hardware from that age.

What would the world look like today? Would you still have your job. With the world be in total disarray? Would unethical companies quickly fire most their staff and replace them with machines? Would their be mass riots in the streets by starving neo-luddites? Would automated drones be shooting at them?

Simply put people and our social systems are not ready for competent machine intelligence and how fast it will change the world. We should feel lucky we are getting a ramp up period, and hopefully one that draws out a while longer.

Re: AI 2027

#159

Post by pixl97 » Thu, Apr 03, 2025, 10:08 PM UTC

achierius wrote: post #152

amelius wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we don't do it, someone else will.

That's obviously not true. Before OpenAI blew the field open, multiple labs -- e.g. Google -- were intentionally holding back their research from the public eye because they thought the world was not ready. Investors were not pouring billions into capabilities. China did not particularly care to focus on this one research area, among many, that the US is still solidly ahead in. The only reason timelines are as short…

The simplicity of the statement "If we don't do it, someone else will." and thinking behind it eventually means someone will do just that unless otherwise prevented by some regulatory function.

Simply put, with the ever increasing hardware speeds we were dumping out for other purposes this day would have come sooner than later. We're talking about only a year or two really.

Re: AI 2027

#160

Post by kmeisthax » Thu, Apr 03, 2025, 10:09 PM UTC

> The agenda that gets the most resources is faithful chain of thought: force individual AI systems to “think in English” like the AIs of 2025, and don’t optimize the “thoughts” to look nice. The result is a new model, Safer-1.

Oh hey, it's the errant thought I had in my head this morning when I read the paper from Anthropic about CoT models lying about their thought processes.

While I'm on my soapbox, I will point out that if your goal is preservation of democracy (itself an instrumental goal for human control), then you want to decentralize and distribute as much as possible. Centralization is the path to dictatorship. A significant tension in the Slowdown ending is the fact that, while we've avoided AI coups, we've given a handful of people the ability to do a perfectly ordinary human coup, and humans are very, very good at coups.

Your best bet is smaller models that don't have as many unused weights to hide misalignment in; along with interperability and faithful CoT research. Make a model that satisfies your safety criteria and then make sure everyone gets a copy so subgroups of humans get no advantage from hoarding it.