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

AI is different

antirez.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 920 posts

Re: AI is different

#11

Post by yomismoaqui »

btilly wrote: post #7

In every technology wave so far, we've disrupted many existing jobs. However we've also opened up new kinds of jobs. And, because it is easier to retrain humans than build machines for those jobs, we wound up with more and better jobs. This is the first technology wave that doesn't just displace humans, but which can be trained to the new job opportunities more easily than humans can. Right now it can't replace human…

Don't worry about the political leaders, if a sizeable amount of people lose their jobs they will surely ask GPT-10 how to build a guillotine.

Re: AI is different

#12

Post by asciimov »

markmoscov wrote: post #3
BoorishBears wrote: post #2

I don't get how post GPT-5's launch we're still getting articles where the punchline is "what if these things replace a BUNCH of humans".

what if they replace internet comments? As a large language model developed by OpenAI I am unable to fulfill that request.

Not sure the last time you went on reddit, but I wouldn't be surprised if around 20% of posts and comments there are LLM generated.

Re: AI is different

#13

Post by ahurmazda »

When I hear folks glazing some kinda impending jobless utopia , I think of the intervening years. I shudder. As they say, "An empty stomach knows no morality."

Re: AI is different

#14

Post by copperx »

stephc_int13 wrote: post #6
BoorishBears wrote: post #2

I don't get how post GPT-5's launch we're still getting articles where the punchline is "what if these things replace a BUNCH of humans".

Salvatore is right about the fact that we have not seen the full story yet, LLMs are stalling/plateauing but active research is already ongoing to find different architectures and models. And I think the effort here can be compared in scale to the Manhattan or Apollo projects, but there is also the potential for a huge backlash to the hype that was built up and created what is arguably a bubble, so this is a race aga…

Current GenAI is nothing but a proof of concept. The seed is there. What AI can do at the moment is irrelevant. This is like the discovery of DNA. It changed absolutely everything in biology.

The fact that something simple like the Transformer architecture can do so much will spark so many ideas (and investment!) that it's hard to imagine that AGI will not happen eventually.

Re: AI is different

#15

Post by energy123 »

BoorishBears wrote: post #2

I don't get how post GPT-5's launch we're still getting articles where the punchline is "what if these things replace a BUNCH of humans".

I have to tap the sign whenever someone talks about "GPT-5"

> AI is exceptional for coding! [high-compute scaffold around multiple instances / undisclosed IOI model / AlphaEvolve]

> AI is awesome for coding! [Gpt-5 Pro]

> AI is somewhat awesome for coding! ["gpt-5" with verbosity "high" and effort "high"]

> AI is a pretty good at coding! [ChatGPT 5 Thinking through a Pro subscription with Juice of 128]

> AI is mediocre at coding! [ChatGPT 5 Thinking through a Plus subscription with a Juice of 64]

> AI sucks at coding! [ChatGPT 5 auto routing]

Re: AI is different

#16

Post by aurareturn » 

  We are not there, yet, but if AI could replace a sizable amount of workers, the economic system will be put to a very hard test. Moreover, companies could be less willing to pay for services that their internal AIs can handle or build from scratch.
There will be fewer very large companies in terms of human size. There will be many more companies that are much smaller because you don't need as many workers to do the same job.

Instead of needing 1000 engineers to build a new product, you'll need 100 now. Those 900 engineers will be working for 9 new companies that weren't viable before because the cost was too big but is now viable. IE. those 9 new companies could never be profitable if it required 1000 engineers each but can totally sustain itself with 100 engineers each.

Re: AI is different

#17

Post by mattnewton »

aurareturn wrote: post #16

We are not there, yet, but if AI could replace a sizable amount of workers, the economic system will be put to a very hard test. Moreover, companies could be less willing to pay for services that their internal AIs can handle or build from scratch. There will be fewer very large companies in terms of human size. There will be many more companies that are much smaller because you don't need as many workers to do the s…

Maybe, or 300 of those engineers will be working for 3 new companies while the other 600 struggle to find gainful employment, even after taking large pay cuts, as their skillsets are replaced rather than augmented. It’s way too early to call afaict

Re: AI is different

#18

Post by noduerme »

BoorishBears wrote: post #8
stephc_int13 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Salvatore is right about the fact that we have not seen the full story yet, LLMs are stalling/plateauing but active research is already ongoing to find different architectures and models. And I think the effort here can be compared in scale to the Manhattan or Apollo projects, but there is also the potential for a huge backlash to the hype that was built up and created what is arguably a bubble, so this is a race aga…

> Salvatore is right about the fact that we have not seen the full story yet, LLMs are stalling/plateauing but active research is already ongoing to find different architectures and models. They will need to be so different that any talk implying current LLMs eventually replaced humans will be like saying trees eventually replaced horses because the first cars were wooden. > And I think the effort here can be compare…

>> mass replacement of skilled workers

unless you consider people who write clickbait blogs to be skilled workers, in which case the damage is already done.

Re: AI is different

#19

Post by BoorishBears »

nojito wrote: post #9
BoorishBears wrote: post #2

I don't get how post GPT-5's launch we're still getting articles where the punchline is "what if these things replace a BUNCH of humans".

The amount of innovation in the last 6-8 months has been insane.

Innovation in terms of helping devs do cool things has been insane.

There've been next to no advancements relative to what's needed to redefine our economic systems by replacing the majority of skilled workers.

-

Productionizing test-time compute covers 80% of what we've gotten in the last 6-8 months. Advancements in distillation and quantization cover the 20% of the rest... neither unlocks some path to mass unemployment.

What we're doing is like 10x'ing your vertical leap when your goal is to land on the moon: 10x is very impressive and you're going to dominate some stuff in ways no one ever thought possible.

But you can 100x it and it's still not getting you to the moon.

Re: AI is different

#20

Post by aurareturn »

btilly wrote: post #7

In every technology wave so far, we've disrupted many existing jobs. However we've also opened up new kinds of jobs. And, because it is easier to retrain humans than build machines for those jobs, we wound up with more and better jobs. This is the first technology wave that doesn't just displace humans, but which can be trained to the new job opportunities more easily than humans can. Right now it can't replace human…

  This is the first technology wave that doesn't just displace humans, but which can be trained to the new job opportunities more easily than humans can. Right now it can't replace humans for a lot of important things. But as its capabilities improve, what do displaced humans transition to?
Assuming AI doesn't get better than humans at everything, humans will be supervising and directing AIs.
Post reply on HN