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

LLM Inevitabilism

tomrenner.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 1001 posts

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#71

Post by WD-42 »

XenophileJKO wrote: post #52
afavour wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feels somewhat like a self fulfilling prophecy though. Big tech companies jam “AI” in every product crevice they can find… “see how widely it’s used? It’s inevitable!” I agree that AI is inevitable. But there’s such a level of groupthink about it at the moment that everything is manifested as an agentic text box. I’m looking forward to discovering what comes after everyone moves on from that.

We haven't even barely extracted the value from the current generation of SOTA models. I would estimate less then 0.1% of the possible economic benefit is currently extracted, even if the tech effectively stood still. That is what I find so wild about the current conversation and debate. I have claude code toiling away building my personal organization software right now that uses LLMs to take unstructured input and…

I keep hearing this over and over. Some llm toiling away coding personal side projects, and utilities. Source code never shared, usually because it’s “too specific to my needs”. This is the code version of slop.

When someone uses an agent to increase their productivity by 10x in a real, production codebase that people actually get paid to work on, that will start to validate the hype. I don’t think we’ve seen any evidence of it, in fact we’ve seen the opposite.

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#72

Post by cwnyth »

energy123 wrote: post #27
godelski wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you told someone in 1950 that smartphones would dominate they wouldn't have a hard time believing you. Hell, they'd add it to sci-fi books and movies. That's because the utility of it is so clear. But if you told them about social media, I think the story would be different. Some would think it would be great, some would see it as dystopian, but neither would be right. We don't have to imagine, though. All three o…

> But if you told them about social media, I think the story would be different. It would be utopian, like how people thought of social media in the oughts. It's a common pattern through human history. People lack the imagination to think of unintended side effects. Nuclear physics leading to nuclear weapons. Trains leading to more efficient genocide. Media distribution and printing press leading to new types of prop…

All of this is a pretty ignorant take on history. You don't think those who worked on the Manhattan Project knew the deadly potential of the atom bomb? And Communism didn't lead to famine - Soviet and Maoist policies did. Communism was immaterial to that. And it has nothing to do with utopianism. Trains were utopian? Really? It's just that new technology can be used for good things or bad things, and this goes back to when Grog invented the club. It's has zero bearing on this discussion.

Your ending sentence is certainly correct: we aren't imagining the effects of AI enough, but all of your examples are not only unconvincing, they're easy ways to ignore what downsides of AI there might be. People can easily point to how trains have done a net positive in the world and walk away from your argument thinking AI is going to do the same.

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#73

Post by haiku2077 »

NBJack wrote: post #5
delichon wrote: post #2

If in 2009 you claimed that the dominance of the smartphone was inevitable, it would have been because you were using one and understood its power, not because you were reframing away our free choice for some agenda. In 2025 I don't think you can really be taking advantage of AI to do real work and still see its mass adaptation as evitable. It's coming faster and harder than any tech in history. As scary as that is w…

Ironically, this is exactly the technique for arguing that the blog mentions. Remember the revolutionary, seemingly inevitable tech that was poised to rewrite how humans thought about transportation? The incredible amounts of hype, the secretive meetings disclosing the device, etc.? That turned out to be the self-balancing scooter known as a Segway?

> Remember the revolutionary, seemingly inevitable tech that was poised to rewrite how humans thought about transportation? The incredible amounts of hype, the secretive meetings disclosing the device, etc.? That turned out to be the self-balancing scooter known as a Segway?

Counterpoint: That's how I feel about ebikes and escooters right now.

Over the weekend, I needed to go to my parent's place for brunch. I put on my motorcycle gear, grabbed my motorcycle keys, went to my garage, and as I was about to pull out my BMW motorcycle (MSRP ~$17k), looked at my Ariel ebike (MSRP ~$2k) and decided to ride it instead. For short trips they're a game changing mode of transport.

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#74

Post by kazinator »

LLM is an almost complete waste of time. Advocates of LLM are not accurately measuring their time and productivity, and comparing that to LLM-free alternative approaches.

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#75

Post by tines »

godelski wrote: post #7
delichon wrote: post #2

If in 2009 you claimed that the dominance of the smartphone was inevitable, it would have been because you were using one and understood its power, not because you were reframing away our free choice for some agenda. In 2025 I don't think you can really be taking advantage of AI to do real work and still see its mass adaptation as evitable. It's coming faster and harder than any tech in history. As scary as that is w…

If you told someone in 1950 that smartphones would dominate they wouldn't have a hard time believing you. Hell, they'd add it to sci-fi books and movies. That's because the utility of it is so clear. But if you told them about social media, I think the story would be different. Some would think it would be great, some would see it as dystopian, but neither would be right. We don't have to imagine, though. All three o…

> Some would think it would be great, some would see it as dystopian, but neither would be right.

No, the people saying it’s dystopian would be correct by objective measure. Bombs are nothing next to Facebook and TikTok.

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#76

Post by anovikov »

godelski wrote: post #9
NBJack wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, this is exactly the technique for arguing that the blog mentions. Remember the revolutionary, seemingly inevitable tech that was poised to rewrite how humans thought about transportation? The incredible amounts of hype, the secretive meetings disclosing the device, etc.? That turned out to be the self-balancing scooter known as a Segway?

I think about the Segway a lot. It's a good example. Man, what a wild time. Everyone was so excited and it was held in mystery for so long. People had tried it in secret and raved about it on television. Then... they showed it... and... well... I got to try one once. It was very underwhelming...

Problem with Segway was that it was made in USA and thus was absurdly, laughably expensive, it cost the same as a good used car and top versions, as a basic new car. Once a small bunch of rich people all bought one, it was over. China simply wasn't in position at a time yet to copycat and mass-produce it cheaply, and hype cycles usually don't repeat so by the time it could, it was too late. If it was invented 10 years later we'd all ride $1000-$2000 Segways today.

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#78

Post by dheera »

mbgerring wrote: post #39
delichon wrote: post #2

If in 2009 you claimed that the dominance of the smartphone was inevitable, it would have been because you were using one and understood its power, not because you were reframing away our free choice for some agenda. In 2025 I don't think you can really be taking advantage of AI to do real work and still see its mass adaptation as evitable. It's coming faster and harder than any tech in history. As scary as that is w…

I’ve tried to use AI for “real work” a handful of times and have mostly come away disappointed, unimpressed, or annoyed that I wasted my time. Given the absolutely insane hard resource requirements for these systems that are kind of useful, sometimes, in very limited contexts, I don’t believe its adoption is inevitable. Maybe one of the reasons for that is that I work in the energy industry and broadly in climate tec…

That's how people probably felt about the first cars, the first laptops, the first .

People like you grumbled when their early car broke down in the middle of a dirt road in the boondocks and they had to eat grass and shoot rabbits until the next help arrived. "My horse wouldn't have broken down", they said.

Technologies mature over time.

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#79

Post by deanCommie »

mg wrote: post #70

In the 90s a friend told me about the internet. And that he knows someone who is in a university and has access to it and can show us. An hour later, we were sitting in front of a computer in that university and watched his friend surfing the web. Clicking on links, receiving pages of text. Faster than one could read. In a nice layout. Even with images. And links to other pages. We were shocked. No printing, no shipp…

the issue isn't the capabilities of AI.

It's how it will be used maliciously and change our society irrevocably.

Not from saving developers hours of work.

But from making truth even more subjective and at the whims of the powerful.

And from devaluing and stagnating art even further.

And from sabotaging the critical thinking capabilities of our youths.

All technology comes with tradeoffs. The internet you describe also doesn't exist - it's been overtaken with ads and tracking and it's basically impossible to use without some sort of adblocking. But we can all agree it was worth it for humanity.

So will AI. Probably.

But that's what people are always concerned with - the downstream consequences like nothing we've ever encountered before.

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#80

Post by sampl3username »

freshtake wrote: post #30
mlsu wrote: post #6

I hate AI. I'm so sick of it. I read a story about 14 year olds that are adopting AI boyfriends. They spend 18 hours a day in conversation with chatbots. Their parents are worried because they are withdrawing from school and losing their friends. I hate second guessing emails that I've read, wondering if my colleagues are even talking to me or if they are using AI. I hate the idea that AI will replace my job. Even if…

The issue, unfortunately, is that society has failed to recognize the real dangers of social technologies (social media, social AI, perhaps AI in general). 30 years from now if we're lucky, we'll be watching senate hearings with AI billionaires being asked how they didn't realize their products were so harmful.

Oh but they realize. They just don't care because they (the Elites, the wealthy, who are the real decisionmakers, not the politicians) have enough money to never have to interact with the proletariat, the common man, ever again. Enough money to be shielded from the consequences from their actions.
Post reply on HN