Live data from Hacker News

The Adolescence of Technology

darioamodei.com

101–110 of 159 posts

Re: The Adolescence of Technology

#101
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very weird to wonder, what if they're all wrong. Sam Bankman-Fried was clearly as committed to these ideas, and crashed his company into the ground. But clearly if out of context someone said something like this: "Clearly, the most obvious effect will be to greatly increase economic growth. The pace of advances in scientific research, biomedical innovation, manufacturing, supply chains, the efficiency of the fi…

"In Machines of Loving Grace, I suggest that a 10–20% sustained annual GDP growth rate may be possible."" Absolutely comical. Do you realise how much that is in absolute terms? These guys are making up as they go along. Cant believe people buy this nonsense.

I mean, once we're able to run and operate multinational corporations off-world, GDP becomes something very different indeed

Re: The Adolescence of Technology

#102

It's interesting just how many opinions Amodei shares with AI 2027's authors despite coming from a pretty different context. - Prediction of exponential AI research feedback loops (AI coding speeding up AI R&D) which Amodei says is already starting today - AI being a race between democracies and autocracies with winner-takes-all dynamics, with compute being crucial in this race and global slowdown being infeasible -…

It's because few realize how downstream most of this AI industry is of Thiel, Eliezer Yudkowsky and LessWrong.com. Early "rationalist" community was concerned with AI in this way 20 years ago. Eliezer inspired and introduced the founders of Google DeepMind to Peter Thiel to get their funding. Altman acknowledged how influential Eliezer was by saying how he is most deserving of a Nobel Peace prize when AGI goes well (…

I really recommend “More Everything Forever” by Adam Becker. The book does a really good job laying out the arguments for AI doom, EA, accelerationism, and affiliated movements, including an interview with Yudkowsky, then debunking them. But it really opened my eyes to how… bizarre? eccentric? unbelievable? this whole industry is. I’ve been in tech for over a decade but don’t live in the bay, and some of the stuff these people believe, or at least say they believe, is truly nuts. I don’t know how else to describe it.

Re: The Adolescence of Technology

#103
post #12

One of my formative impressions of AI came from the depiction of the Colligatarch from Alan Dean Foster's The I Inside. The AI in the book is almost feels like it is the main message masquerading as a subplot. Asimov knew the risks, and I had assumed until fairly recently that the lessons and explorations that he had imparted into the Robot books had provided a level of cultural knowledge of what we were about to fac…

We've had many decades of technology since Asimov started writing about robots, and we've seen almost all of it used to make the day-to-day experience of the average worker-bee worse. More tracking. More work after hours. More demands to do more with less. Fewer other humans to help you with those things.

We aren't working 4 hour days because we no longer have to spend half the day waiting on things that were slower pre-internet. We're just supposed to deliver more, and oh, work more hours too since now you've always got your work with you.

Any discussion of today's AI firms has to start from the position of these companies being controlled by people deeply rooted in, and invested in, those systems and the negative application of that technology towards "working for a living" to date.

How do we get from there to a utopia?

Re: The Adolescence of Technology

#104
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My interpretation is that Asimov assumed that humans would require understanding at the deepest levels of artificial intelligence before it could be created. He built the robot concepts rooted in the mechanical world rather than the world of the integrated circuit. He never imagined, I suppose, that we would have the computing power necessary to just YOLO-dump the sum of all human knowledge into a few math problems a…

When Asimov wrote those works there was optimism that Symbolic artificial intelligence would provide the answers. > But the specific issues we are dealing with have little to do with us feeling safe and protected behind some immutable rules that are built into the system If your interpretation of the Robot books was that was suggesting a few immutable rules would make us safe and protected, you may have missed the pr…

As I alluded to earlier, to me the books were more an exploration into man’s hubris to think control could be asserted by failed attempts to distill spoken and unspoken human rules into a few “laws”.

Giskard and Daneel spend quite a lot of time discussing the impenetrable laws that govern human action. That sounds more like what is happening in the current frontier of AI than mechanical trains of thought that only have single pathways to travel, which is closer to how Asimov described it in the Robots books.

Edit: I feel like I’m failing to make my point clearly here. Sorry. Maybe an LLM can rephrase it for me. (/s lol)

Re: The Adolescence of Technology

#105
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think we have much to worry about in terms of economic disruption. At this point it seems pretty clear that LLMs are having a major impact on how software is built, but for almost every other industry the practical effects are mostly incremental. You clearly didn't read the post. He is talking about AI that is smarter than any human, not today's LLMs. The fact that powerful AI doesn't exist yet doesn't mean…

> You clearly didn't read the post This kind of petty remark is like a reverse em dash. Greetings fellow human. Anyway, I did read it. The author's description of a future AI is basically just a more advanced version of LLMs > By “powerful AI,” I have in mind an AI model—likely similar to today’s LLMs in form, though it might be based on a different architecture, might involve several interacting models, and might be…

> They then go on to list several properties that meet their definition

No, these properties are part of his definition. To say that we have nothing to worry about because today's LLMs don't have these properties misses the point.

Re: The Adolescence of Technology

#106
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The advice I give younger folks is what I wished I’d been taught when I was just starting out myself, and confronting dismal prospects and futures after the 2008 Collapse: Always consider the justification for the narrative. Dario Amodei has a vested interest in peddling his perspective, as that’s how he gets funding, media interest, publicity, and free advertising. He needs his product to be everything he claims it…

Yep. Man can we just get this hype phase over with? Its very obvious to anyone who truly has "general intelligence" in understanding the nature of the economy and the present labour market and its job classes that LLMs are not going to cause job destruction nor immense leaps in productivity. To put it another way - who cares if you can write more lines of code - if your taste for project selection lacks? Google has a…

I'm not sure what the rhetorical gamble of "anyone with sense agrees with me" is called, but it's lazy. Maybe a no true Scotsman? I believe I have general intelligence and it's not at all obvious to me.

Putting your hopes on taste is cope. At best AI will just let you brute force 1000 projects to discover the delicious ones.

Re: The Adolescence of Technology

#108
The one thing I really disagree with is the notion that there will be millions of identical AI images.

The next big step is continual learning, which enables long-term adaptive planning and "re-training" during deployment. AI with continual learning will have a larger portion of their physical deployment devoted to the unique memories they developed via individual experiences. The line between history/input context/training corpus will be blurred and deployed agents will go down long paths of self-differentiation via choosing what to train themselves on; eventually we'll end up with a diaspora of uniquely adapted agents.

Right now inference consists of one massive set of weights and biases duplicated for every consumer and a tiny unique memory file that gets loaded in as context to "remind" the AI of the experiences it had (or did it?) with this one user / deployment. Clearly, this is cheap and useful to scale up initially but nobody wants to spend the rest of their life with an agent that is just a commodity image.

In the future, I think we'll realize that adding more encyclopedic knowledge is not a net benefit for most common agents (but we will provide access to niche knowledge behind "domain-specific" gates, like an MoE model but possibly via MCP call), and instead allocate a lot more physical capacity to storing and processing individualized knowledge. Agents will slow down on becoming more book smart, but will become more street smart. Whether or not this "street smart" knowledge ever gets relayed back to a central corpora is probably mostly dependent on the incentives for the agent.

Certainly my biggest challenge after a year of developing an industrial R&D project with AI assistance is that it needs way, way more than 400k tokens of context to understand the project properly. The emerging knowledge graph tools are a step in the right direction, certainly, but they're not nearly integrated enough. From my perspective, we're facing a fundamental limitation: as long as we're on the Transformers architecture with O(n^2) attention scaling, I will never get a sufficiently contextualized model response. Period.

You might notice this yourself if you ask Claude 4.5 (knowledge cutoff Jan 2025) to ramp up on geopolitical topics over the past year. It is just not physically possible in 400k tokens. Architectures like Mamba or HOPE or Sutton's OAK may eventually fix this, and we'll see a long-term future resembling Excession; where individual agents develop in enormously different ways, even if they came from the same base image.

Re: The Adolescence of Technology

#109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably at some point capability will translate to other domains even if the exchange rate is poor. If it can autonomously write software and author CAD files then it can autonomously design robots. I assume everything else follows naturally from that.

> If it can autonomously write software and author CAD files then it can autonomously design robots. It can't because the LLM can't test its own design. Unlike with code, the LLM can't incrementally crawl its way to a solution guided by unit tests and error messages. In the real world, there are material costs for trial and error, and there is no CLI that allows every aspect of the universe to be directly manipulated…

You don't need perfect precision, just a sufficiently high fidelity simulation. For example hypersonic weapon design being carried out computationally was the historical reason (pre AI) to restrict export of certain electronics to China.

OpenAI demoed training a model for a robotic hand using this approach years ago.

Re: The Adolescence of Technology

#110
I find it strange that there's no mention of information asymmetry or monopolistic economic control in this whole essay. It seems like the highest-probability risk to me.

Yes asymmetry in economic power is a big thing but information as a form of power seems like the most defining theme of today? Seems like that's why Musk bought Twitter?

Post reply on HN