AI is impressive because we've failed at personal computing
rakhim.exotext.com
AI is impressive because we've failed at personal computing
1–10 of 190 posts
Re: AI is impressive because we've failed at personal computing
#2is it unreasonable to expect some kind of good enough baseline guided by the prior of these llm to be the standard ? Should google's priors (or their training dataset and recipe) be allowed to guide societal's prior? same problem, different era ?
Re: AI is impressive because we've failed at personal computing
#3A pretty reductionist and a poor take.
"Standing on the shoulders of giants, it is clear that the giants failed to reach the heights we have reached."
Re: AI is impressive because we've failed at personal computing
#4"AI is impressive because it solves problems better than the previous solutions"? Yes?
Re: AI is impressive because we've failed at personal computing
#5I have often thought about how computers are significantly faster than they were in the early 2000s, but they are significantly harder to use. Using Linux for the first time in college was a revelation, because it gave me the tools to tell the computer "rename all of the files in this directory, keeping only the important parts of the name."
But instead of iterating on better interfaces to effectively utilize the N thousands of operations per second a computer is capable of, the powers that be behind the industry have decided to invest billions of dollars in GPUs to get a program that seems like it understands language, but is incapable of counting the number of B's in "blueberry."
Re: AI is impressive because we've failed at personal computing
#6> because we've failed at personal computing
?
If you really want to, you know have this super generic indexing thing, why don't you go organize the web with hypercard and semantic web crap and tell us how it worked out for you
Re: AI is impressive because we've failed at personal computing
#7Expresses a longing for the semantic web.
> Remember Semantic Web? The web was supposed to evolve into semantically structured, linked, machine-readable data that would enable amazing opportunities. That never happened.
I think the lesson to be learned is in answering the question "Why didn't the semantic web happen?"
Re: AI is impressive because we've failed at personal computing
#8> If all knowledge were stored in a structured way with rich semantic linking, then very primitive natural language processing algorithms could parse question like the example at the beginning of the article, and could find the answer using orders of magnitude fewer computational resources.
In vertical markets, can LLMs generate a "semantic web of linked data" knowledge graph to be parsed with efficient NLP algorithms?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43914227#43926169
leveraging LLMs to build the special markup so that it can be applied towards other uses.. some type of semantic web format, like JSON-LD or OWL, or some database that can process SPARQL queries.. Palantir is using ontologies as guardrails to prevent LLM hallucinationsRe: AI is impressive because we've failed at personal computing
#9Expresses a longing for the semantic web. > Remember Semantic Web? The web was supposed to evolve into semantically structured, linked, machine-readable data that would enable amazing opportunities. That never happened. I think the lesson to be learned is in answering the question "Why didn't the semantic web happen?"
>"Why didn't the semantic web happen?"
Because web content is generated by humans, not engineers.
Re: AI is impressive because we've failed at personal computing
#10Expresses a longing for the semantic web. > Remember Semantic Web? The web was supposed to evolve into semantically structured, linked, machine-readable data that would enable amazing opportunities. That never happened. I think the lesson to be learned is in answering the question "Why didn't the semantic web happen?"
> "Why didn't the semantic web happen?"
Advertising.