Live data from Hacker News

We Must Return to the Office to Use AI in Person

mcsweeneys.net

31–40 of 72 posts

Re: We Must Return to the Office to Use AI in Person

#31
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't 1984 released in 1949?

Yup, it was written around 1948. Easy to remember as you just swap the final 2 digits.

Oh wow, if they’d changed the title to match the release date (1994) that would really change the vibe, haha.

Re: We Must Return to the Office to Use AI in Person

#32
We used to develop AI to convince us its human (turing test). The future is about convincing AI/Automated Systems that you're - competent (hiring), not a bot (anti-spam), doing your job (KPIs), not a threat (ala social score, AI powered weapons targeting), worthy of being saved (insurance claims), etc, etc.

Whether or not humans break from those shackles, I for one, am hoping Hollywood supplies us with wonderfully dystopian sci-fi entertainment for years to come.

Re: We Must Return to the Office to Use AI in Person

#35
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I train my 1000 billion parameter blank AI on this text and only this text over and over again, we may get 99% there.

> If I train my 1000 billion parameter blank AI on this text and only this text over and over again, we may get 99% there. You'll get 100% of the way there, because, lacking any other training, it will only ever be able to reproduce this text verbatim. Hence, 100%, hence mission accomplished.

That's not how training works.

Training tries to produce something that scores highly in training evaluations. With one data point, the evaluation is solely how closely the model output resembles the single input text.

Let's say you do that, and the training text is 58,100 tokens long. Let's say you ask the model to produce 58,101 tokens. Will it "reproduce [the] text verbatim"? No, it can't, because of the dissimilar requested length. Something "new" will come out.

It's also entirely possible that no matter how long you train, the model never converges on generating exactly the same output as its training data - you could end up with an average loss value of 0.001 instead of 0.0. It's not a perfectly deterministic process.

You're correct in principle, but in reality even with limited training data real-world models produce something that isn't exactly their training, especially when sampled stochastically. They're biased toward their training data, not forced to it.

Re: We Must Return to the Office to Use AI in Person

#39

RTO is the worst shit managers try to push.

It's your position that remote work is an unvarnished success though? No notes? Personally, I feel that remote-only in 2026 is mainly a cost-savings scheme, and probably functions to make the ground much more fertile for replacing knowledge workers (us) with AI agents.

In a physical space, humans have built-in advantages over bots. Operating exclusively or primarily over IP levels the playing field, nullifying our advantages of expressive nonverbal communication, and makes 100% of our output accessible to agents.

And it minimizes our contact with each other. I know you can DM people on Slack to gossip about the boss, but do you? Figuring everything is logged, you'd have to create and nurture alternative private channels like texting, and doing that at scale carries at least some implication of subterfuge that limits participation, in a way that chatting around a table at the sandwich shop just doesn't.

All of us really do appreciate the savings on gas money and (in theory) the time savings, though I bet most people have given over some of that time savings to work tasks. I'm not saying it doesn't have benefits. But I don't think the companies still embracing remote work are doing it out of philanthropy, and I don't think it's necessarily good for us workers.

Re: We Must Return to the Office to Use AI in Person

#40
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there is soul in this that a soulless automaton cannot replicate. It is the difference between making something to be consumed and something to be felt. This is something to be felt.

Current LLMs couldn't write this. Ones in a few years possibly could. Betting AI will never be as good as humans at [X] is usually not the hill you want to die on.

LLMs have been getting worse at long-form prose recently (and they were never good at it to begin with.) They're good at writing software because writing software is a much more restricted domain.
Post reply on HN