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

After the AI Crash

potsandpansbyccg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 244 posts

Re: After the AI Crash

#61

Post by Yopolo »

dannersy wrote: post #42
Insanity wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what they'll sell you. But fundamentally current LLM implementations seem to be the wrong methodology for 'AGI' and I don't think we're remotely close to having this.

[flagged]

This stupid LLM is already smarter than a handful of people I know.

I don't think we have pushed LLMs to their limits already, its still progressing its still crazy good and its able to run even longer today than yesterday.

But researchers are already working on more architectures.

Re: After the AI Crash

#62

Post by ramijames »

bbmatryoshka wrote: post #23

Those analyses tend to not consider the government interest in having AI as a weapon: now AI labs are fully part of the military sector, making them much more supported by the system

This has been my take too. I think that the revenue requirements for making the industry profitable are likely never to be met, but that the US government sees AI as a strategic necessity and will ensure that the companies that are pushing the technology forward will be paid huge sums of money if they ever become insolvent. It's not ideal, but if banks are too big to fail, I'm guessing that OpenAI and Anthropic are too. This is doubly true since the defense sector is already integrating these solutions into their systems and actively using them in wartime activities.

Re: After the AI Crash

#63

Post by xienze »

ursuscamp wrote: post #48
toasty228 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> absolutely no way to stop it. Unless if they take down the flat rate subs and you have to pay api prices, usage will drop a lot. Right now I freelance using gpt, if I had to pay api prices I'd probably lose 50% of the income, if not more, with the ~40% tax on top I might as well spend my time doing something else

I don't necessarily buy that API prices represent "real" prices of the models.

Well of course they're higher than marginal cost. But these providers have to also generate a fat return on investment.

Re: After the AI Crash

#64

Post by gruez »

badrequest wrote: post #54

When I joined my first startup, they said if you didn't have a good plan for going public or getting acquired by series C, then the D in series D stood for death. Uber et al raised like a J round. None of the rules around markets or investments are real, it's all vibes-based, and the decision-makers love talking to their ChatGPT mistresses too much to let this all come crashing down.

>Uber et al raised like a J round. None of the rules around markets or investments are real

Uber's a poor example because it did IPO in 2019 and its stocks are up around 75% since then.

Re: After the AI Crash

#65

Post by AnimalMuppet »

fidotron wrote: post #2

Without AI there is no future US economy. You're all in.

In a word, baloney.

The US produces stuff, and it produces ideas. Yeah, it imports a lot of stuff too. But it exports things like food, movies, and software.

Without AI, the financial sector may take a huge hit. But the US economy? It will still be here, still producing things that are valuable.

Re: After the AI Crash

#66

Post by dannersy »

ltbarcly3 wrote: post #40

There's a very nonzero chance that the AI expenses are not a race to recoup investments as they are a bet (with other people's money) that AI will lead to longevity or immortality, a bet made by aging tech oligarchs. Notice that Ellison is betting his entire company on it, which due to his secured debt is the same as betting his personal fortune in the most extreme case.

So they've been sold snake oil. This, along with colonizing Mars and mining asteroids, is complete and total science fiction.

Re: After the AI Crash

#67

Post by Marha01 »

zero_shift wrote: post #22
mosura wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the strong arguments in favor of AI accelerationism is net pain reduction by making the transition period as short as possible. Ideas like “pacing” or a crash and reboot will prolong the inevitable.

That is an absurd position to take. Nobody benefits by having less time to adapt to changes in their employability I am not calling you out personally here, but this comment bears many hallmarks of the "accelerationist disease": thinking in abstract models rather than in concrete terms; optimising for the fangs of capital rather than human beings, imaginary infinite bets that lead participants to nonsensical conclusi…

> Nobody benefits by having less time to adapt

Not exactly true. If AI goes from 0 to 100 quickly (human level AGI in a few years), we will all lose our jobs together and will have to confront this fact. There is no ignoring such massive societal elephant in the room.

If instead AI improves slowly, lots of people will lose their jobs, but majority will not. Those still with jobs may not be persuaded by the sizable jobless minority to support any societal changes, since they are still OK. This means the jobless will be screwed.

Re: After the AI Crash

#68

Post by tempfile »

ursuscamp wrote: post #48
toasty228 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> absolutely no way to stop it. Unless if they take down the flat rate subs and you have to pay api prices, usage will drop a lot. Right now I freelance using gpt, if I had to pay api prices I'd probably lose 50% of the income, if not more, with the ~40% tax on top I might as well spend my time doing something else

I don't necessarily buy that API prices represent "real" prices of the models.

What do you think the real price is? Subscriptions are heavily subsidised, I don't know anyone who would deny that.

Re: After the AI Crash

#69

Post by joshdavham »

What implications might an AI crash have on the software developer job market? It’s likely that many AI software companies would fold and thus have to layoff their employees, but what would be the implications for the rest of the tech job market?

I often see developers giddy about the idea of AI being a bubble and waiting for the crash, but I suspect this event could actually be particularly terrible for us.

Re: After the AI Crash

#70

Post by nehal3m »

Schlagbohrer wrote: post #47
outworlder wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like every AI cycle that came before. At every cycle, we get a new tool. But we also get an extended "AI Winter" where investment dries up. This has been happening since the 1980s, we just keep redefining what "AI" is. At every cycle we move the line a bit; at one point voice recognition was firmly in the AI camp(and before that, science fiction). Now we have a machine that can do that in our pockets and nobody…

Douglas Hofstadter talked about these moving goalposts for AI in his book Gödel, Escher, Bach. I remember when a program that could win at chess was considered impossibly strong AI. Then, the game go. Etc. Heinlein in his book The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress imagined that people in the future would find it worthwhile, even necessary, to learn an artifical language LogLan so they could talk with computers. LogLan (Logica…

Ah, Lojban!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban

Sadly this does not let you speak to computers, just other language nerds with a lot of time.

Post reply on HN