Live data from Hacker News

Beliefs that are true for regular software but false when applied to AI

boydkane.com

11–20 of 461 posts

Re: Beliefs that are true for regular software but false when applied to AI

#11
> bugs are usually caused by problems in the data used to train an AI

This also is a misunderstanding.

The LLM can be fine, the training and data can be fine, but because the LLMs we use are non-deterministic (at least in regard to their being intentional attempts at entropy to avoid always failing certain scenarios) current algorithms are inherently by-design not going to always answer every question correctly that it potentially could have if the values that fall within a range had been specific values for that scenario. You roll the dice on every answer.

Re: Beliefs that are true for regular software but false when applied to AI

#13
post #4

The most likely danger with AI is concentrated power, not that sentient AI will develop a dislike for us and use us as "batteries" like in the Matrix.

Seems like a self fulfilling prophecy

Definitely not ‘self’ fulfilling. There are plenty of people actively and vigorously working to fulfill that particular reality.

Re: Beliefs that are true for regular software but false when applied to AI

#14

> bad behaviour isn’t caused by any single bad piece of data, but by the combined effects of significant fractions of the dataset Related opposing data point to this statement: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45529587

"Signficiant fraction" does not imply (to this data scientist) a large fraction.

Re: Beliefs that are true for regular software but false when applied to AI

#15
post #4

The most likely danger with AI is concentrated power, not that sentient AI will develop a dislike for us and use us as "batteries" like in the Matrix.

The reality is that the CEO/executive class already has developed a dislike for us and is trying to use us as “batteries” like in the Matrix.

CEOs (even most VCs) are labor too

Re: Beliefs that are true for regular software but false when applied to AI

#16
post #4

The most likely danger with AI is concentrated power, not that sentient AI will develop a dislike for us and use us as "batteries" like in the Matrix.

To me, the greatest threat is information pollution. Primary sources will be diluted so heavily in an ocean of generated trash that you might as well not even bother to look through any of it.

Re: Beliefs that are true for regular software but false when applied to AI

#17
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality is that the CEO/executive class already has developed a dislike for us and is trying to use us as “batteries” like in the Matrix.

CEOs (even most VCs) are labor too

Do they know it?

Re: Beliefs that are true for regular software but false when applied to AI

#18
> Because eventually we’ll iron out all the bugs so the AIs will get more reliable over time

Honestly this feels like a true statement to me. It's obviously a new technology, but so much of the "non-deterministic === unusable" HN sentiment seems to ignore the last two years where LLMs have become 10x as reliable as the initial models.

Re: Beliefs that are true for regular software but false when applied to AI

#19
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality is that the CEO/executive class already has developed a dislike for us and is trying to use us as “batteries” like in the Matrix.

CEOs (even most VCs) are labor too

Labor competes for compensation, CEOs compete for status (above a certain enterprise size, admittedly). Show me a CEO willingly stepping down to be replaced by generative AI. Jamie Dimon will be so bold to say AI will bring about a 3 day week (because it grabs headlines [1]) but he isn't going to give up the status of running JPMC; it's all he has besides the wealth, which does not appear to be enough. The feeling of importance and exceptionalism is baked into the identity.

[1] https://fortune.com/article/jamie-dimon-jpmorgan-chase-ceo-a...

Re: Beliefs that are true for regular software but false when applied to AI

#20
post #5

> here are some example ideas that are perfectly true when applied to regular software Hm, I'm listening, let's see. > Software vulnerabilities are caused by mistakes in the code That's not exactly true. In regular software, the code can be fine and you can still end up with vulnerabilities. The platform in which the code is deployed could be vulnerable, or the way it is installed make it vulnerable, and so on. > Bug…

You should read the footnote marked [1] after "a note for technical folk" at the beginning of the article. He is very consciously making sweeping generalizations about how software works in order to make things intelligible to non-technical readers.

Sure, but:

> these claims mostly hold, but they break down when applied to distributed systems, parallel code, or complex interactions between software systems and human processes

The claims the GP quoted DON’T mostly hold, they’re just plain wrong. At least the last two, anyway.

Post reply on HN