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

Nvidia CEO criticizes Anthropic boss over his statements on AI

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 195 posts

Re: Nvidia CEO criticizes Anthropic boss over his statements on AI

#171

Post by fmbb »

pixl97 wrote: post #30
fmbb wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have only been selling our labor for a couple of hundred years. Humanity has been around for hundreds of thousands of years. We will manage. Hey, we can always eat the rich!

"Dinosaurs have been around 100 million years and they will be around 100 million more" --Dinosaurs 65.1 million years ago.

How is that comparable?

I write we have only sold our labor for a couple of hundred years. We had civilization for many thousands of years before.

Dinosaurs did not live before they lived. And they did not die because their mode of production changed. They did not have a mode of production.

Are you suggesting LLMs will exterminate humanity?

Re: Nvidia CEO criticizes Anthropic boss over his statements on AI

#172

Post by knowitnone »

zozbot234 wrote: post #47
kbos87 wrote: post #19

Companies like Nvidia and OpenAI base their answers to any questions on economic risk on their own best interests and a pretty short view of history. They are fighting like hell to make sure they are among a small set of winners while waving away the risk or claiming that there's some better future for the majority of people on the other side of all this. To claim that all of the benefit isn't going to naturally accr…

"Massive disruption" of what kind? Current AI abilities make white-collar work more productive and potentially higher-paid, not less.

so if they are more productive, does that not mean companies will need fewer staff? Why would they give you more pay when they can so easily replace you. Remember, you're not doing much of the work anymore so expect lower pay.

Re: Nvidia CEO criticizes Anthropic boss over his statements on AI

#173

Post by mattliu »

knowitnone wrote: post #172
zozbot234 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Massive disruption" of what kind? Current AI abilities make white-collar work more productive and potentially higher-paid, not less.

so if they are more productive, does that not mean companies will need fewer staff? Why would they give you more pay when they can so easily replace you. Remember, you're not doing much of the work anymore so expect lower pay.

[dead]

Re: Nvidia CEO criticizes Anthropic boss over his statements on AI

#174

Post by ethbr1 »

nradov wrote: post #169
ethbr1 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sub-6% unemployment: https://www.investopedia.com/historical-us-unemployment-rate... Capital doesn't pay labor unless it has to. Average wages = f(labor productivity, demand for labor, labor supply) The AGI future is that demand for labor crashes.

US unemployment rate is currently 4.2%. There is no prospect of real AGI any time soon.

There doesn't have to be to cause a substantial structural unemployment jump.

Even AI that's only borderline competent at fuzzy 'file these files into these systems' admin work would wipe out a class of middle income jobs.

And given that's basically here today technologically, we're in the digestion and expansion phase.

Re: Nvidia CEO criticizes Anthropic boss over his statements on AI

#175

Post by tossandthrow »

seadan83 wrote: post #122
tossandthrow wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other end is that we continue a roughly 3% unemployment over the next 5 years. I am curious to hear why you think that?

False dichotomy, we don't have to continue at 3% for the 20% prediction to be wrong. So far, I've seen jobs lost to tariffs. I've yet to see a job lost to AI. Observations are not evidence, but so far there is no evidence I see that shows AI to be a stronger macro economic force than say recessions, tariffs (trade wars) or actual wars.

> for the 20% prediction to be wrong.

The was also not the bet.

> I feel extremely confident taking the other end of this bet.

I interpret that as full employment, which we are practically at now.

It would be amazing if we can stick on to full employment without serious inflation over the next 5 years, and it sounds unreasonable in my ears.

Re: Nvidia CEO criticizes Anthropic boss over his statements on AI

#176

Post by bradgessler »

kbos87 wrote: post #19

Companies like Nvidia and OpenAI base their answers to any questions on economic risk on their own best interests and a pretty short view of history. They are fighting like hell to make sure they are among a small set of winners while waving away the risk or claiming that there's some better future for the majority of people on the other side of all this. To claim that all of the benefit isn't going to naturally accr…

I did a thought experiment where, at scale, if each human was given maximum agency over the observable universe, we’d each manage 250 galaxies.

That comes out to about 25 trillion stars and 40 trillion planets.

Give or take a few orders of magnitude, I’m confident humans will either figure out how to expand into that space or squabble over rationing our remaining resources on earth.

Re: Nvidia CEO criticizes Anthropic boss over his statements on AI

#177

Post by int_19h »

MostlyStable wrote: post #158
bluefirebrand wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there is no where for increased wages to come _from The pie doesn't have to grow when the pie is already massive, but only 1% of people are taking 90% of the pie

You can get short term or one time increases by taking from somewhere else, but without productivity gains, it's an inherently limited, zero sum game.

It's not short-term or one-time if you're taking away and redistributing the economic rent that those people collect from the rest of us.

Re: Nvidia CEO criticizes Anthropic boss over his statements on AI

#178

Post by neilfrndes »

finlayson_point wrote: post #140
neilfrndes wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, Claude Code is the real deal. It's a massive force multiplier for me. I run a small SaaS startup. I've gotten more done in the last month than the previous 3 months or more combined. Not just code, but also emails, proposals, planning, legal etc. I feel like working in slo-mo when Claude is down (which unfortunately happens every couple of days). I believe that tools like Claude code will help smaller companies…

how are you using claude code for emails? with a MCP connection or just taking the output from the terminal

I just copy the terminal output, no MCP. The context relevant to most emails is in a CLAUDE.md file.

Re: Nvidia CEO criticizes Anthropic boss over his statements on AI

#179

Post by solumunus »

hollowturtle wrote: post #94
solumunus wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really is night and day. Most of them feel like cool toys, Claude Code is a genuine work horse. It immediately became completely integral to my workflow. I own a small business and I can say with absolute confidence this will reduce the amount of devs I need to hire going forward.

I don't get claims like that, if AI let me do more and be more productive with less people I could also grow and scale more, that means that I can also hire more and again multiply growth because each dev will bring more and more... I'm skeptic because I don't see it happening, actually the contrary more people doing more things maybe, but the not 10x nor 100x otherwise we would see products built in 5 years coming o…

It’s not my goal to scale infinitely. I want to run a small, tight business which is highly profitable but also pleasant to operate long term. I’m not looking for some huge exit.

Re: Nvidia CEO criticizes Anthropic boss over his statements on AI

#180

Post by falcor84 »

quonn wrote: post #130
falcor84 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is it early days? When you have exponential growth, it's always early days. Other than that I'm not clear on what you're saying. What is in your mind the difference between how we should plan for the societal impact of AI in the short vs the long term?

> When you have exponential growth, it's always early days. Let‘s take the development of CPUs where for 30-40 years the observable performance actually did grow exponentially (unlike the current AI boom where it does not). Was it always early days? Was it early days for computers in 2005?

In a way, yes, I think that rise smartphones and the resulting proliferation of cheap mobile processors was ground-shattering in terms of what we consider to be a computer. If I'm reading the numbers correctly, there are about 2B people with their own pc/laptop while there are about 5B people with their own smartphone. So 60% of people using computing do so on a type of device that didn't exist in 2005.

And this is before we talk about new modalities that might take over in the future, like VR/AR, wearable AI "pins" (which is what I assume that Johnny Ive is working on), neural interfaces, and maybe even quantum computing. So I personally don't see any issue of thinking of what happened 20 years ago, and what's happening at the moment as "early days for computers".

This is of course a semantics argument, but in my mind "early days" is a term for the time before things stabilized, and I'm very unclear on what that means for a field that's continuously undergoing rapid growth. As another extreme case - what would you say were the "early days" for life on planet Earth? I assume that most people wouldn't be thinking of just the first 50 years after the first RNA molecules got enclosed in a membrane.

Post reply on HN