A bear case: My predictions regarding AI progress • Hacker News Board

Re: A bear case: My predictions regarding AI progress

#111

Post by rchaud » Mon, Mar 10, 2025, 3:50 PM UTC

_huayra_ wrote: post #92

csomar wrote: post #22

> LLMs still seem as terrible at this as they'd been in the GPT-3.5 age. Software agents break down once the codebase becomes complex enough, game-playing agents get stuck in loops out of which they break out only by accident, etc. This has been my observation. I got into Github Copilot as early as it launched back when GPT-3 was the model. By that time (late 2021) copilot can already write tests for my Rust function…

Ultimately, every AI thing I've tried in this era seems to want to make me happy, even if it's wrong, instead of helping me. I describe it like "an eager intern who can summarize a 20-min web search session instantly, but ultimately has insufficient insight to actually help you". (Note to current interns: I'm mostly describing myself some years ago; you may be fantastic so don't take it personally!) Most of my intera…

The difference is that interns can learn, and can benefit from reference items like a prior report, whose format and structure they can follow when working on the revisions.

AI is just AI. You can upload a reference file for it to summarize, but it's not going to be able to look at the structure of the file and use that as a template for future reports. You'll still have to spoon-feed it constantly.

Re: A bear case: My predictions regarding AI progress

#112

Post by carlosdp » Mon, Mar 10, 2025, 3:53 PM UTC

stego-tech wrote: post #2

> At some point there might be massive layoffs due to ostensibly competent AI labor coming onto the scene, perhaps because OpenAI will start heavily propagandizing that these mass layoffs must happen. It will be an overreaction/mistake. The companies that act on that will crash and burn, and will be outcompeted by companies that didn't do the stupid. We're already seeing this with tech doing RIFs and not backfilling…

I'll take that bet, easily.

There's absolutely no way that we're not going to see a massive reduction in the need for "humans writing code" moving forward, given how good LLMs are getting at writing code.

That doesn't mean people won't need devs! I think there's a real case where increased capabilities from LLMs leads to bigger demand for people that know how to direct the tools effectively, of which most would probably be devs. But thinking we're going back to humans "writing readable, functional, maintainable code" in two years is cope.

Re: A bear case: My predictions regarding AI progress

#113

Post by zanfr » Mon, Mar 10, 2025, 3:53 PM UTC

handfuloflight wrote: post #61

cheevly wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I promise the amount of time, experiments and novel approaches you’ve tested are .0001% of what others have running in stealth projects. Ive spent an average of 10 hours per day constantly since 2022 working on LLMs, and I know that even what I’ve built pales in comparison to other labs. (And im well beyond agents at this point). Agentic AI is what’s popular in the mainstream, but it’s going to be trounced by at leas…

Say more.

seems like OP ran out of tokens

Re: A bear case: My predictions regarding AI progress

#114

Post by throw4847285 » Mon, Mar 10, 2025, 3:54 PM UTC

randomNumber7 wrote: post #50

colonCapitalDee wrote: post #26

Yeah, I'd buy it. I've been using Claude pretty intensively as a coding assistant for the last couple months, and the limitations are obvious. When the path of least resistance happens to be a good solution, Claude excels. When the best solution is off the beaten track, Claude struggles. When all the good solutions lay off the beaten track, Claude falls flat on its face. Talking with Claude about design feels like ta…

Yes, but on the other hand I don't understand why people think something that you can train something on pattern matching and it magically becomes intelligent.

This is the difference between the scientific approach and the engineering approach. Engineers just need results. If humans had to mathematically model gravity first, there would be no pyramids. Plus, look up how many psychiatric medications are demonstrated to be very effective, but the action mechanisms are poorly understood. The flip side is Newton doing alchemy or Tesla claiming to have built an earthquake machine.

Sometimes technology far predates science and other times you need a scientific revolution to develop new technology. In this case, I have serious doubts that we can develop "intelligent" machines without understanding the scientific and even philosophical underpinnings of human intelligence. But sometimes enough messing around yields results. I guess we'll see.

Re: A bear case: My predictions regarding AI progress

#115

Post by rchaud » Mon, Mar 10, 2025, 3:55 PM UTC

roncesvalles wrote: post #64

roenxi wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I knew Uber, Netflix, Spotify were revolutionary the first time I used them. Maybe re-tune your revolution sensor. None of those are revolutionary companies. Profitable and well executed, sure, but those turn up all the time. Uber's entire business model was running over the legal system so quickly that taxi licenses didn't have time to catch up. Other than that it was a pretty obvious idea. It is a taxi service. T…

They were revolutionary as product genres, not necessary individual companies. Ordering a cab without making a phone call was revolutionary. Netflix at least with its initial promise of having all the world's movies and TV was revolutionary, but it didn't live up to that. Spotify because of how cheap and easy it was to have access to all the music, this was the era when people were paying 99c per song on iTunes. I've…

> They were revolutionary as product genres, not necessary individual companies.

Even then, they were evolutionary at best.

Before Netflix and Spotify, streaming movies and music were already there as a technology, ask anybody with a Megaupload or Sopcast account. What changed was that DMCA acquired political muscle and cross-border reach, wiping out waves of torrent sites and P2P networks. That left a new generation of users with locked-down mobile devices no option but to use legitimate apps who had deals in place with the record labels and movie studios.

Even the concept of "downloading MP3s" disappeared because every mobile OS vendor hated the idea of giving their customers access to the filesystem, and iOS didn't even have a file manager app until well into the next decade (2017).

Re: A bear case: My predictions regarding AI progress

#116

Post by lackoftactics » Mon, Mar 10, 2025, 3:58 PM UTC

ath3nd wrote: post #105

lackoftactics wrote: post #99

>GPT-5 will be even less of an improvement on GPT-4.5 than GPT-4.5 was on GPT-4. The pattern will continue for GPT-5.5 and GPT-6, the ~1000x and 10000x models they may train by 2029 (if they still have the money by then). Subtle quality-of-life improvements and meaningless benchmark jumps, but nothing paradigm-shifting. It's easy to spot people who secretly hate LLMs and feel threatened by them these days. GPT-5 will…

I logged in to specifically downvote this comment, because it attacks the OP's position with unjustified and unsubstantiated confidence in the reverse. > It's easy to spot people who secretly hate LLMs and feel threatened by them these days. I don't think OP is threatened or hates LLM, if anything, OP is on the position that LLM are so far away from intelligence that it's laughable to consider it threatening. > In co…

I appreciate the pushback and acknowledge that my earlier comment might have conveyed too much certainty—skepticism here is justified and healthy.

However, I'd like to clarify why optimism regarding AGI isn't merely wishful thinking. Historical parallels such as heavier-than-air flight, Go, and protein folding illustrate how sustained incremental progress combined with competition can result in surprising breakthroughs, even where previous efforts had stalled or skepticism seemed warranted. AI isn't just a theoretical endeavor; we've seen consistent and measurable improvements year after year, as evidenced by Stanford's AI Index reports and emergent capabilities observed at larger scales.

It's true that smart people alone don't guarantee success. But the continuous feedback loop in AI research—where incremental progress feeds directly into further research—makes it fundamentally different from fields characterized by static or singular breakthroughs. While AGI remains ambitious and timelines uncertain, the unprecedented investment, diversity of research approaches, and absence of known theoretical barriers suggest the odds of achieving significant progress (even short of full AGI) remain strong.

To clarify, my confidence isn't about exact timelines or certainty of immediate success. Instead, it's based on historical lessons, current research dynamics, and the demonstrated trajectory of AI advancements. Skepticism is valuable and necessary, but history teaches us to stay open to possibilities that seem improbable until they become reality.

P.S. I apologize if my comment particularly triggered you and compelled you to log in and downvote. I am always open to debate, and I admit again that I started too strongly.

Re: A bear case: My predictions regarding AI progress

#117

Post by Timber-6539 » Mon, Mar 10, 2025, 3:58 PM UTC

AI has no meaningful input to real world productivity because it is a toy that is never going to become the real thing that every person who has naively bought the AI hype expects it to be. And the end result of all the hype looks almost too predictable similar to how the also once promising crypto & blockchain technology turned out.

Re: A bear case: My predictions regarding AI progress

#118

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia » Mon, Mar 10, 2025, 3:59 PM UTC

rlnvlc wrote: post #88

csomar wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> None of those are revolutionary companies. Not only Uber/Grab (or delivery app) were revolutionary, they are still revolutionary. I could live without LLMs and my life will be slightly impacted when coding. If delivery apps are not available, my life is severely degraded. The other day I was sick. I got medicine and dinner with Grab. Delivered to the condo lobby which is as far as I can get. That is revolutionary.

Were you not able to order food before Uber/Grab?

Before the proliferation of Uber Eats, Doordash, GrubHub, etc, most of the places I've lived had 2 choices for delivered food: pizza and Chinese.

It has absolutely massively expanded the kinds of food I can get delivered living in a suburban bordering on rural area. It might be a different experience in cities where the population size made delivery reasonable for many restaurants to offer on their own.

Re: A bear case: My predictions regarding AI progress

#119

Post by colonial » Mon, Mar 10, 2025, 4:00 PM UTC

amoss wrote: post #36

demaga wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would expect similar doom predictions in the era of nuclear weapon invention, but we've survived so far. Why do people assume AGI will be orders of magnitude more dangerous than what we already have?

Nuclear weapons are not self-improving or self-replicating.

Self-improvement (in the "hard takeoff" sense) is hardly a given, and hostile self-replication is nothing special in the software realm (see: worms.)

Any technically competent human knows the foolproof strategy for malware removal - pull the plug, scour the platter clean, and restore from backup. What makes an out-of-control pile of matrix math any different from WannaCry?

AI doom scenarios seem scary, but most are premised on the idea that we can create an uncontainable, undefeatable "god in a box." I reject such premises. The whole idea is silly - Skynet Claude or whatever is not going to last very long once I start taking an axe to the nearest power pole.

Re: A bear case: My predictions regarding AI progress

#120

Post by AlotOfReading » Mon, Mar 10, 2025, 4:04 PM UTC

carlosdp wrote: post #110

> At some point there might be massive layoffs due to ostensibly competent AI labor coming onto the scene, perhaps because OpenAI will start heavily propagandizing that these mass layoffs must happen. It will be an overreaction/mistake. The companies that act on that will crash and burn, and will be outcompeted by companies that didn't do the stupid. Um... I don't think companies are going to perform mass layoffs bec…

I don't think LLMs need to be able to genuinely fulfill the duties of a job to replace the human. Think call center workers and insurance reviewers where the point is to meet metrics without regard for the quality of the work performed. The main thing separating those jobs from say, HR (or even programmers) is how much the company cares about the quality of the work. It's not hard to imagine a situation where misguided people try to replace large numbers of federal employees with LLMs, as an entirely hypothetical example.