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

AI 2027

ai-2027.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 641 posts

Re: AI 2027

#161

Post by somerandomness »

torginus wrote: post #143

Much has been made in its article about autonomous agents ability to do research via browsing the web - the web is 90% garbage by weight (including articles on certain specialist topics). And it shows. When I used GPT's deep research to research the topic, it generated a shallow and largely incorrect summary of the issue, owning mostly to its inability to find quality material, instead it ended up going for places li…

Agreed. However, source curation and agents are two different parts of Deep Research. What if you provided that textbook to a reliable agent?

Plug: We built https://RadPod.ai to allow you to do that, i.e. Deep Research on your data.

Re: AI 2027

#162

Post by OgsyedIE »

KaiserPro wrote: post #151

> 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…

Unfortunately the current system is doing a bad job of finding replacements for dwindling crucial resources such as petroleum basins, new generations of workers, unoccupied orbital trajectories, fertile topsoil and copper ore deposits. Either the current system gets replaced with a new system or it doesn't.

Re: AI 2027

#163

Post by pixl97 »

kubb wrote: post #44
mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's an example of an intellectual task that you don't think AI will be capable of by 2027?

It won't be able to write a compelling novel, or build a software system solving a real-world problem, or operate heavy machinery, create a sprite sheet or 3d models, design a building or teach. Long term planning and execution and operating in the physical world is not within reach. Slight variations of known problems should be possible (as long as the size of the solution is small enough).

> or operate heavy machinery

What exactly do you mean by this one?

In large mining operations we already have human assisted teleoperation AI equipment. Was watching one recently where the human got 5 or so push dozers lined up with a (admittedly simple) task of cutting a hill down and then just got them back in line if they ran into anything outside of their training. The push and backup operations along with blade control were done by the AI/dozer itself.

Now, this isn't long term planning, but it is operating in the real world.

Re: AI 2027

#164

Post by preommr »

somerandomness wrote: post #161
torginus wrote: post #143

Much has been made in its article about autonomous agents ability to do research via browsing the web - the web is 90% garbage by weight (including articles on certain specialist topics). And it shows. When I used GPT's deep research to research the topic, it generated a shallow and largely incorrect summary of the issue, owning mostly to its inability to find quality material, instead it ended up going for places li…

Agreed. However, source curation and agents are two different parts of Deep Research. What if you provided that textbook to a reliable agent? Plug: We built https://RadPod.ai to allow you to do that, i.e. Deep Research on your data.

So, once again, we're in the era of "There's an [AI] app for that".

Re: AI 2027

#165

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

achierius wrote: post #149
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #129

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? OK, say I totally believe this. What, pray tell, are we supposed to do about it? Don't you at least see the irony of quoting Sama's dire warnings about the development of AI, without at least mentioning that he is at the absolute forefront of the push to build this technology that can dest…

Political organization to force a stop to ongoing research? Protest outside OAI HQ? There are lots of thing we could, and many of us would , do if more people were actually convinced their life were in danger.

> Political organization to force a stop to ongoing research? Protest outside OAI HQ?

Come on, be real. Do you honestly think that would make a lick of difference? Maybe, at best, delay things by a couple months. But this is a worldwide phenomenon, and humans have shown time and time again that they are not able to self organize globally. How successful do you think that political organization is going to be in slowing China's progress?

Re: AI 2027

#166

Post by LordDragonfang »

samth wrote: post #93
beklein wrote: post #9

Older and related article from one of the authors titled "What 2026 looks like", that is holding up very well against time. Written in mid 2021 (pre ChatGPT) https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/6Xgy6CAf2jqHhynHL/what-... //edit: remove the referral tags from URL

I think it's not holding up that well outside of predictions about AI research itself. In particular, he makes a lot of predictions about AI impact on persuasion, propaganda, the information environment, etc that have not happened.

Could you give some specific examples of things you feel definitely did not come to pass? Because I see a lot of people here talking about how the article missed the mark on propaganda; meanwhile I can tab over to twitter and see a substantial portion of the comment section of every high-engagement tweet being accused of being Russia-run LLM propaganda bots.

Re: AI 2027

#167

Post by juped »

amarcheschi wrote: post #12

I 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…

You pretty much just have to play around with them enough to be able to intuit what things they can do and what things they can't. I'd rather have another underling, and not just because they grow into peers eventually, but LLMs are useful with a bit of practice.

Re: AI 2027

#168

Post by pinetone »

I think it's worth noting that all of the authors have financial or professional incentive to accelerate the AI hype bandwagon as much as possible.

Re: AI 2027

#169

Post by rglover »

superconduct123 wrote: post #115

Why are the biggest AI predictions always made by people who aren't deep in the tech side of it? Or actually trying to use the models day-to-day...

Aside from the other points about understanding human psychology here, there's also a deep well they're trying to fill inside themselves. That of being someone who can't create things without shepherding others and see AI as the "great equalizer" that will finally let them taste the positive emotions associated with creation.

The funny part, to me, is that it won't. They'll continue to toil and move on to the next huck just as fast as they jumped on this one.

And I say this from observation. Nearly all of the people I've seen pushing AI hyper-sentience are smug about it and, coincidentally, have never built anything on their own (besides a company or organization of others).

Every single one of the rational "we're on the right path but not quite there" takes have been from seasoned engineers who at least have some hands-on experience with the underlying tech.

Re: AI 2027

#170

Post by ohgr »

superconduct123 wrote: post #115

Why are the biggest AI predictions always made by people who aren't deep in the tech side of it? Or actually trying to use the models day-to-day...

In the path to self value people explain their worth by what they say not what they know. If what they say is horse dung, it is irrelevant to their ego if there is someone dumber than they are listening.

This bullshit article is written for that audience.

Say bullshit enough times and people will invest.

Post reply on HN