101–110 of 193 posts
I might be wrong, but it seems like some people are misinterpreting what is being said here. Software 3.0 isn't about using AI to write code. It's about using AI instead of code. So not Human -> AI -> Create Code -> Compile Code -> Code Runs -> The Magic Happens. Instead, it's Human -> AI -> The Magic Happens.
I might be wrong, but it seems like some people are misinterpreting what is being said here. Software 3.0 isn't about using AI to write code. It's about using AI instead of code. So not Human -> AI -> Create Code -> Compile Code -> Code Runs -> The Magic Happens. Instead, it's Human -> AI -> The Magic Happens.
So... Who builds the AI? This is why I think the AI industry is mostly smoke and mirrors. If these tools are really as revolutionary as they claim they are, then they should be able to build better versions of themselves, and we should be seeing exponential improvements of their capabilities. Yet in the last year or so we've seen marginal improvements based mainly on increasing the scale and quality of the data they'…
Recursive self-improvement is literally the endgame scenario - hard takeoff, singularity, the works. Are you really saying you're dissatisfied with the progress of those tools because they didn't manage to end the world as we know it just yet?
You’ve got “two bars” instead of “two rs” in strawberry
A large contention of this essay (which I’m assuming the talk is based on or is transcribed from depending on order) I do think that open source models will eventually catch up to closed source ones, or at least be “good enough” and I also think you can already see how LLMs are augmenting knowledge work. I don’t think it’s the 4th wave of pioneering a new dawn of civilization but it’s clear LLMs will remain useful wh…
Why would open source outpace? Isn’t there way more money in the closed source ones and therefore more incentive to work on them?
I soak up everything Andrej has to say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So... Who builds the AI? This is why I think the AI industry is mostly smoke and mirrors. If these tools are really as revolutionary as they claim they are, then they should be able to build better versions of themselves, and we should be seeing exponential improvements of their capabilities. Yet in the last year or so we've seen marginal improvements based mainly on increasing the scale and quality of the data they'…
> If these tools are really as revolutionary as they claim they are, then they should be able to build better versions of themselves, and we should be seeing exponential improvements of their capabilities. Recursive self-improvement is literally the endgame scenario - hard takeoff, singularity, the works. Are you really saying you're dissatisfied with the progress of those tools because they didn't manage to end the…
If the former then yes singularity. The only hope is it's "good will" (wouldn't bet on that) or turning off switches.
If the latter you still need more workers (programmers or whatever they'll be called) due to increased demand for compute solutions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So... Who builds the AI? This is why I think the AI industry is mostly smoke and mirrors. If these tools are really as revolutionary as they claim they are, then they should be able to build better versions of themselves, and we should be seeing exponential improvements of their capabilities. Yet in the last year or so we've seen marginal improvements based mainly on increasing the scale and quality of the data they'…
> If these tools are really as revolutionary as they claim they are, then they should be able to build better versions of themselves, and we should be seeing exponential improvements of their capabilities. Recursive self-improvement is literally the endgame scenario - hard takeoff, singularity, the works. Are you really saying you're dissatisfied with the progress of those tools because they didn't manage to end the…
I think there will be a wall hit eventually with this, much like there was with visual recognition in the mid 2010s[0]. It will continue to improve but not exponentially
To be fair I am bullish it will make white collar work fundamentally different but smart companies will use it to accelerate their workforce productivity, reliability and delivery, not simply cut labor to the bone, despite that seemingly being every CEOs wet dream right now
[0]: remember when everyone was making demos and apps that would identify objects and such, and all the facial augmentation stuff? My general understanding is that the tech is now in the incremental improvement stage. I think LLMs will hit the same stage in the near term and likely hover there for quite awhile
> I think broadly speaking, software has not changed much at such a fundamental level for 70 years. I love Andrej, but come on. Writing essentially punch cards 70 years ago, writing C 40 years ago and writing Go or Typescript or Haskell 10 years ago, these are all very different activities.
The main thing that changed about programming is the social/political/bureaucratic side.
I might be wrong, but it seems like some people are misinterpreting what is being said here. Software 3.0 isn't about using AI to write code. It's about using AI instead of code. So not Human -> AI -> Create Code -> Compile Code -> Code Runs -> The Magic Happens. Instead, it's Human -> AI -> The Magic Happens.
This is great idea, until you have to build something.