Live data from Hacker News

AI is a horse (2024)

kconner.com

151–160 of 254 posts

Re: AI is a horse (2024)

#151

Anyone claiming the horse understands the journey, or worse, wants to take you somewhere, is selling mythology

That's moving away from the actual horse analogy. If you can tell a guide dog to take you somewhere, you can tell a horse that too.

Granted, a journey to a new location would make this accurate.

Re: AI is a horse (2024)

#152
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a legitimate fear that is born from what happened with Chess. Humans could handily beat computers at chess for a long time. Then a massive supercomputer beat the reigning champion, but didn't win the tournament. Then that computer came back and won the tournament a year later. A few years later humans are collaborating in-game with these master chess engines to multiply their strength, becoming the d…

This isn't quite right to my knowledge. Most Game AI's develop novel strategies which they use to beat opponents - but if the player knows they are up against a specific Game AI and has access to it's past games, these strategies can be countered. This was a major issue in the AlphaStar launch where players were able to counter AlphaStar on later play throughs.

Comparing Chess AI to AlphaStar seems pretty messy, StarCraft is such a different type of game. With Chess it doesn't matter if you get an AI like Lc0 to follow lines it played previously because just knowing what it's going to play next doesn't really help you much at all, the hard part is still finding a win that it didn't find itself.

In comparison with StarCraft there's a rock-paper-scissors aspect with the units that makes it an inherent advantage to know what your opponent is doing or going to do. The same thing happens with human players, they hide their accounts to prevent others from discovering their prepared strategies.

Re: AI is a horse (2024)

#153
post #74

Famously Steve Jobs said that the (personal) computer is "like a bicycle for the mind". It's a great metaphor because- besides the idea of lightness and freedom it communicates- it also described the computer as multiplier of the human strength- the bicycle allows one to travel faster and with much less effort, it's true, but ultimately the source of its power is still entirely in the muscles of the cyclist- you don'…

I've been calling LLMs "electric bicycles for the mind", inspired by that Jobs quote. - some bicycle purists consider electric bicycles to be "cheating" - you get less exercise from an electric bicycle - they can get you places really effectively! - if you don't know how to ride a bicycle an electric bicycle is going to quickly lead you to an accident

Not convinced with any of three analogies tbh they don’t quite capture what is going on like Steve jobs’ did.

And frankly all of this is really missing the point - instead of wasting time on analogies we should look at where this stuff works and then reason from there - a general way to make sense of it that is closer to reality.

Re: AI is a horse (2024)

#154
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After Deep Blue Garry Kapsparav proposed "Centaur Chess"[1] where teams of humans and computers would complete with each other. For about a decade a team like that was superior to either an unaided computer or an unaided AI. These days pure AI teams tend to be much stronger. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess

How would pure ai ever be "much stronger" in this scenario? That doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever, it can only be "equally strong", making the approach non-viable because they're not providing any value... But the only way for the human in the loop to add an actual demerit, you'd have to include time taken for each move into the final score, which isn't normal in chess. But I'm not knowledgeable on the topic,…

Why? If the human has final say on which play to make I can certainly see them thinking they are proposing a better strategy when they are actually hurting their chances.

Re: AI is a horse (2024)

#155
Why does HN love analogies? You can pick any animal or thing and it can fit in some way. Horse is a docile safe analogy it’s also the most obvious analogy. Like yes the world gets it LLMs have limitations thanks for sharing, we know it’s not as good as a programmer.

We should use analogies to point out the obvious thing everyone is avoiding:

Guys 3 years ago, AI wasn’t even a horse. It was a rock. The key is that it transformed into horse…. what will it be in the next 10 years?

AI is a terminator. A couple years back someone turned off read only mode. That’s the better analogy.

Pick an analogy that follows the trendline of continual change into the unknown future rather then an obvious analogy that keeps your ego and programming skills safe.

Re: AI is a horse (2024)

#158

Why does HN love analogies? You can pick any animal or thing and it can fit in some way. Horse is a docile safe analogy it’s also the most obvious analogy. Like yes the world gets it LLMs have limitations thanks for sharing, we know it’s not as good as a programmer. We should use analogies to point out the obvious thing everyone is avoiding: Guys 3 years ago, AI wasn’t even a horse. It was a rock. The key is that it…

How about "AI is a chainsaw" ?

Pretty good for specific tasks.

Probably worth the input energy, when used in moderation.

Wear the right safety gear, but even this might not help with a kickback.

It's quite obvious to everyone nearby when you're using one.

Re: AI is a horse (2024)

#160
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After Deep Blue Garry Kapsparav proposed "Centaur Chess"[1] where teams of humans and computers would complete with each other. For about a decade a team like that was superior to either an unaided computer or an unaided AI. These days pure AI teams tend to be much stronger. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess

How would pure ai ever be "much stronger" in this scenario? That doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever, it can only be "equally strong", making the approach non-viable because they're not providing any value... But the only way for the human in the loop to add an actual demerit, you'd have to include time taken for each move into the final score, which isn't normal in chess. But I'm not knowledgeable on the topic,…

You can be so far ahead of someone, their input (if you act on it) can only make things worse. That's it. If a human 'teams up' with chess AI today and does anything other than agree with its moves, it will just drag things down.
Post reply on HN