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

I think you might be fooling yourself with AI

louwrentius.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 174 posts

Re: I think you might be fooling yourself with AI

#141

Post by dingaling »

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #135
somenameforme wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a simple dichotomy based on use cases. For things you're already highly skilled at LLMs can be handy but the overall gains, after all is accounted for, are not so clear. But for things you aren't good at, they're zomg amazing. So for somebody evaluating things based on what they do at work (where they're probably quite competent) or on personal projects well within their own domain, then it's 'hey wha…

That's one dimension. Another is how much you care. For my own projects, little productivity apps for my own needs, I'm easily 20x more productive. I'm building so many more of them, and at a much higher level of polish. But that's simply because I don't care about the code, long-term maintenance, or anything else. I just need them to do a thing, and if they do the thing, I'm good. I used to make an effort calculatio…

I understand what you're saying about side projects but it just sounds... like buying a landscape wall print from IKEA instead of taking a photo and having it printed on canvas.

My non-work projects are exercises for the brain and for learning, and if instead I could just automagic them into existence they'd feel hollow and almost cheating.

Re: I think you might be fooling yourself with AI

#142

Post by louwrentius »

dilyevsky wrote: post #44
danesparza wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"These articles are so off from reality to the point that it can't be taken seriously at all" So you disagree with the quote from Feynman? (the quote that forms the basis of the article) I'm genuinely curious to know what part of the article you feel is "so far off from reality"?

"do not fool yourself" proceeds to fool himself... if you are honest about your bias that's still fooling yourself if your conclusions are just demonstrably wrong.

Where’s your proof? No anecdotes plz.

Re: I think you might be fooling yourself with AI

#143

Post by dilyevsky »

louwrentius wrote: post #142
dilyevsky wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"do not fool yourself" proceeds to fool himself... if you are honest about your bias that's still fooling yourself if your conclusions are just demonstrably wrong.

Where’s your proof? No anecdotes plz.

Here is a TCP simulator I built using Fable 5 to reproduce BBR paper results: https://ccsim.apoxy.dev It took it ~4 hours to bang out initial version which was slightly broken then it took me another day to fix some bugs. A year ago this would take me more than a month of dedicated work, probably longer. A 50x productivity boost on pure coding tasks easily.

Try pointing Fable 5 to almost any CS paper - it can reproduce results in mere hours using maybe couple hundred bucks in retail token prices. This has been obvious to anyone caring to spent even just 30 mins for months now and the writing has been on the wall for more than a year.

Re: I think you might be fooling yourself with AI

#144

Post by InsideOutSanta »

dingaling wrote: post #141
InsideOutSanta wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one dimension. Another is how much you care. For my own projects, little productivity apps for my own needs, I'm easily 20x more productive. I'm building so many more of them, and at a much higher level of polish. But that's simply because I don't care about the code, long-term maintenance, or anything else. I just need them to do a thing, and if they do the thing, I'm good. I used to make an effort calculatio…

I understand what you're saying about side projects but it just sounds... like buying a landscape wall print from IKEA instead of taking a photo and having it printed on canvas. My non-work projects are exercises for the brain and for learning, and if instead I could just automagic them into existence they'd feel hollow and almost cheating.

Sure, it's cheating if you want to frame it like that. But it's still a huge boost in productivity.

Re: I think you might be fooling yourself with AI

#145

Post by pentaphobe »

hsuduebc2 wrote: post #30

These AI sceptics always omit the possibility that running LLMs could become much cheaper in the future, which it almost certainly will. This is largely an infrastructure problem, and it will be solved just as similar problems were solved with storage, network capacity, and computing power. There will be bankruptcies, but the technology will prevail, just as the web did after the dot com bubble. Personally, I see the…

If it gets cheaper then Jevons Paradox [1] would strongly indicate that it won't in any way reduce the negative impacts (and would tend to actually increase them)

[^1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Excerpt: Jevons Paradox/Effect is an economic phenomenon said to occur when technological improvements that increase the efficiency of a resource's use lead to a rise, rather than a fall, in total consumption of that resource

Re: I think you might be fooling yourself with AI

#146

Post by pentaphobe »

archagon wrote: post #140
pentaphobe wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It certainly seems that way from this - admittedly tiny - sample

As an anti-AI booster, I admit that I'm quite insecure, too. And angry. But man, these endless threads with folks endlessly hyping their productivity gains and haranguing others for going against the grain are just blatantly pathological. I feel like I'm an in an episode of Pluribus.

We're sorry we upset you, Carol

Re: I think you might be fooling yourself with AI

#147

Post by jldugger »

scotty79 wrote: post #25
jldugger wrote: post #16

> And I'm also standing by my own idea that AI will run out of money and just be turned off due to the huge operational cost. Thats a pretty strong outcome. It implies that not only are GPUs that power AI too expensive long term, but they cost too much to operate even if they were free. Seems to me the more likely outcome is a wave of dotCom style bankruptcies wiping out equity holders for companies who contracted to…

> even if they were free. They are free. You can download glm-5.2 and run it on your own hardware. Even you got hardware for free, electricity would cost you more than the sub, in most places.

The gpus not the models silly

Re: I think you might be fooling yourself with AI

#148

Post by louwrentius »

dilyevsky wrote: post #143
louwrentius wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where’s your proof? No anecdotes plz.

Here is a TCP simulator I built using Fable 5 to reproduce BBR paper results: https://ccsim.apoxy.dev It took it ~4 hours to bang out initial version which was slightly broken then it took me another day to fix some bugs. A year ago this would take me more than a month of dedicated work, probably longer. A 50x productivity boost on pure coding tasks easily. Try pointing Fable 5 to almost any CS paper - it can reprodu…

1. Does this make money

2. Does this warrant the unsubsidized cost of AI?

3. Does this justify the harmful externalities of AI?

I don't need personal anecdotes. I want evidence that organisations make more money, get more efficient (and so on) due to AI. Please cite a paper.

Re: I think you might be fooling yourself with AI

#149

Post by dilyevsky »

louwrentius wrote: post #148
dilyevsky wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a TCP simulator I built using Fable 5 to reproduce BBR paper results: https://ccsim.apoxy.dev It took it ~4 hours to bang out initial version which was slightly broken then it took me another day to fix some bugs. A year ago this would take me more than a month of dedicated work, probably longer. A 50x productivity boost on pure coding tasks easily. Try pointing Fable 5 to almost any CS paper - it can reprodu…

1. Does this make money 2. Does this warrant the unsubsidized cost of AI? 3. Does this justify the harmful externalities of AI? I don't need personal anecdotes. I want evidence that organisations make more money, get more efficient (and so on) due to AI. Please cite a paper.

A lot of software projects don't make money directly. Our company makes money. This would have cost thousands of dollars paid to a contractor previously with unclear results so yes it's 100% justified.

You're citing a paper that does not reproduce in the year 2026 and a guy who built a following on doom&gloom projections with zero actual verifiable sources and demanding proof. SMH

Re: I think you might be fooling yourself with AI

#150

Post by amarant »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #106
amarant wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it is? Look at kindred group for example, they made >700 million GBP last year. seems viable enough to me!

To clarify, I mean for the bettors.

Oh... Then...I don't think I understood what your point was..

How is running a inference business similar to sports betting, but specifically placing bets, not running a successful sports betting business?

Post reply on HN