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

AI is slowing down

wheresyoured.at

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 820 posts

Re: AI is slowing down

#451

Post by nfw2 »

16bitvoid wrote: post #432
nfw2 wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A request that isn't asking for information isn't a query

That's just what some people generally use to refer to LLM input string/prompt/message/etc. The only thing the LLM can do is return information...in the form of text, so every request is one for information. If we want to get really pedantic, every generated token is the answer to the query: what's the next most probable token in this sequence of tokens?

If "query" doesn't imply intent by the user, it ceases to be a useful word. You can acrobat your way to imagine a digital system has agency to ask a question before it receives bits, but then any transfer of data could be called a query.

When I post this http request containing this reply, you could say my machine is querying the server to ask "what did you do with the message I just gave you", but then query stops having any useful semantic value to distinguish it from "request"

Regardless, this is tangential. I don't disagree that a lot of LLM use is not in pursuit of knowledge, but enough of it is for me to think that preferring LLMs not to exist is a hard position to defend, at least without making the case for existential doom.

Re: AI is slowing down

#452

Post by minimaxir »

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #428

Always a bit eyebrow-raising to me how much people focus on Ed’s style rather than his message, which is, broadly, that the tech industry is deeply morally corrupted. He struggles to speak about it without becoming impassioned, but I read it as incredulousness rather than baseless hyperbole: “How are you still investing in and working for companies like Meta, despite the overwhelming evidence that they are terrible c…

Style is relevant to how humans communicate and it's not always about the message, and it can sometimes work against it. AP Style is an editorial standard for a reason.

IF I WROTE AN ENTIRE BLOG POST IN ALL CAPS ABOUT HOW AI IS LITERALLY SATAN PEOPLE WOULD JUST THINK I AM A CRAZY PERSON

Re: AI is slowing down

#453

Post by bawolff »

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #428

Always a bit eyebrow-raising to me how much people focus on Ed’s style rather than his message, which is, broadly, that the tech industry is deeply morally corrupted. He struggles to speak about it without becoming impassioned, but I read it as incredulousness rather than baseless hyperbole: “How are you still investing in and working for companies like Meta, despite the overwhelming evidence that they are terrible c…

> his message, which is, broadly, that the tech industry is deeply morally corrupted

If that's his message, why is he going on about ecconomic sustainability? Whether or not you have a coherent business model has nothing to do with how morally corrupt you are.

Ultimately i agree with the GP post, the article reads like something preaching to the choir. If you already agree it seems natural. If you don't agree it looks like an incoherent rant that is not particularly convincing.

Re: AI is slowing down

#454

Post by degamad »

0000000000100 wrote: post #315
SlinkyOnStairs wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He would begin somewhere–statistics on AI demand, say–and then walk the calculations carefully over to the next step–maybe revenue needed for profitability by AI companies–and you could follow the argument. That's exactly what the first (titled) section does?

Haha thought you were referring to the upsell at the start asking to subscribe to the newsletter for $70 / year. But yes it does call out the unprecedented amount of money getting dumped into AI. What turned me off though was this paragraph: > This is a hysterical era perpetuated by liars, cowards, imbeciles, craven boosters and the easily-fooled. Those excited about generative AI are either the victim or the perpetr…

[flagged]

Re: AI is slowing down

#455

Post by why0hwhy »

dofm wrote: post #239

Today Apple launched its revamped AI offering. Judging by several reports, Apple pays Google a mere billion dollars a year to operate it. Essentially just licensing the IP. Google are (allegedly) happy to turn over the right to operate and distill their models for only a billion a year. Consumer revenue is only a smallish share of the puzzle, but still: If you are a consumer and you have a Mac or an iPhone, what do y…

Mmhmm and why spend on wrapper SaaS when open or self trained on device models do the job

Web SaaS gonna end up being seen as another failed play at slim clients and entirely centralized sources of pay to play access to eyeballs; more AOL-ification of networks

Re: AI is slowing down

#456

Post by bandrami »

pxeger1 wrote: post #256

This rests on a lot of assumptions that the published figures for "planned" datacentres, "committed" AI spend, etc. are irreversible. I suspect that at least some of it is possible to back out of.

That's true but then that's basically the end of Nvidia if that happens

Re: AI is slowing down

#457

Post by bawolff »

toasty228 wrote: post #118
dkobia wrote: post #9

Zitron is begging for a collapse at this point. Yes, his macro analysis correctly identifies a massive financial risk but his incessant pessimism completely misses the incredible ground-level utility that many of us on HN celebrate every day through undeniable, massive productivity gains. At this point I'm trying to believe there's a middle ground where the level of individual capability this unlocks, leads to major…

> undeniable, massive productivity gains. Take any stock index, remove AI stocks, what do you see? That's right! Nothing... So where is all the productivity going? Where is the value? Where are the massive unemployment stats or the millions of new startups making big $$$?

> Take any stock index, remove AI stocks, what do you see? That's right! Nothing...

I mean, do you know what the value of those stocks would be if AI didn't exist. Maybe they would be much more negative. Maybe we would be in a recession. Without a control this type of analysis is meaningless.

And that is even assuming that AI productivity gains are happening now instead of 5-10 years from now.

Re: AI is slowing down

#458

Post by zetanor »

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #428

Always a bit eyebrow-raising to me how much people focus on Ed’s style rather than his message, which is, broadly, that the tech industry is deeply morally corrupted. He struggles to speak about it without becoming impassioned, but I read it as incredulousness rather than baseless hyperbole: “How are you still investing in and working for companies like Meta, despite the overwhelming evidence that they are terrible c…

This is the kind of thing that the people in power really don't want you to know, but I'll say it anyway because if we don't get the message out, it's just another free win for the Nazis: a bad presentation is a poor information medium.

Re: AI is slowing down

#459

Post by ai_slop_hater »

filoleg wrote: post #446
famouswaffles wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because Apple said they're 'integrating into the OS' (which can really mean a lot of things) doesn't mean they'll offer something users will actually care about that Open AI can't match.

> Apple said they're 'integrating into the OS' (which can really mean a lot of things) Well, it can mean a lot of things, which is why Apple outlined plenty of specific use-cases and details of what they meant by "integrating into the OS" here.

What did they outline? We had "browser use" for a while now, but it is still way too slow to be usable. Not to mention whatever OS integration they are making.

Re: AI is slowing down

#460

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

techblueberry wrote: post #327
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see an argument that the productivity gains are illusory / don’t translate to economic productivity. I’m not denying the possibility. However, most of the engineers I respect have gone from being skeptics a year ago to convinced today. I don’t personally know any true holdouts any more. If there are studies that disprove productivity gains more than six months ago, I’m happy to believe that it was true of the A…

I’m going back to being a holdout, but it’s nuanced - My theory into why LLMs don’t lead to the colloquial definition of productivity would be something like - if code was never the bottleneck than generating code faster doesn’t result in more meaningful output. Even if you take for granted that AI is as good as the best people say in writing code. And Ive spent a lot of time generating codes, I won’t disagree - Then…

I’m not completely closed to your idea but if code was never the bottleneck why did so many organizations always feel so chronically low on coders? And of course this requires the AI to be no help at all with what is actually the bottleneck.
Post reply on HN