111–120 of 163 posts
When will we get AI CEOs? I am tired of seeing corporate decisions driven by quarterly bonuses.
How is this related to TFA which focuses on national (public) labs? In any case, if you want to take a stab at it, feel free to go ahead and start a company whereby you as the owner would assign the CEO responsibilities to an AI.
Most of the bullshitters will tip their hand pretty early that they're just hype men for AI. Right off the bat, the fact that AI is disruptive and transforming society is apparently self-evident because they never cite a single premise or event to back this up. In the quote above, the phrase "if you've played" stuck out to me. Yes if you play around with them a little it's easy to believe they're really good at so many things. When you stringently evaluate them, you begin to see they make a lot of mistakes and perform inconsistently on even trivial tasks.
> If you’ve played with the most recent AI tools, you know: They’re very good coders, very good legal analysts, very good first drafters of writing, very good image generators. They’re only going to get better. Most of the bullshitters will tip their hand pretty early that they're just hype men for AI. Right off the bat, the fact that AI is disruptive and transforming society is apparently self-evident because they n…
Yes, they’re very good coders; no, they aren’t perfect. Sometimes they make trivial mistakes or hallucinate, and other times they have unique insights about difficult problems or one-shot a lot of complex tasks.
If you don’t see the value of AI even at this point, you’re either lacking imagination and/or just too stuck in your own ways.
> If you’ve played with the most recent AI tools, you know: They’re very good coders, very good legal analysts, very good first drafters of writing, very good image generators. They’re only going to get better. Most of the bullshitters will tip their hand pretty early that they're just hype men for AI. Right off the bat, the fact that AI is disruptive and transforming society is apparently self-evident because they n…
You sound more prejudiced against AI than they seem to be hyping AI in that sentence. Yes, they’re very good coders; no, they aren’t perfect. Sometimes they make trivial mistakes or hallucinate, and other times they have unique insights about difficult problems or one-shot a lot of complex tasks. If you don’t see the value of AI even at this point, you’re either lacking imagination and/or just too stuck in your own w…
For me, AI tools shine when I know enough about a topic to quickly error check, but not enough where I can code fluently without documentation. I'm sure it will get more useful over time, but that's where it's been for me for the last year or so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? LLMs will just guess at what sounds like a likely human response to the problem.
Far more to AI than just LLMs. I am talking about more traditional models.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You sound more prejudiced against AI than they seem to be hyping AI in that sentence. Yes, they’re very good coders; no, they aren’t perfect. Sometimes they make trivial mistakes or hallucinate, and other times they have unique insights about difficult problems or one-shot a lot of complex tasks. If you don’t see the value of AI even at this point, you’re either lacking imagination and/or just too stuck in your own w…
I appreciate the value of AI in my own work, but "they’re very good coders" and "they make trivial mistakes or hallucinate" seems incongruous. For me, AI tools shine when I know enough about a topic to quickly error check, but not enough where I can code fluently without documentation. I'm sure it will get more useful over time, but that's where it's been for me for the last year or so.
It seems that way if you judge them the same way you would human coders, but they’re different. They might be able to do things that veteran coders can’t without spending days on it, and fail at things that beginners can do in half an hour.
A car might not be able to traverse difficult terrain as well as a horse, but it doesn’t mean the car is not a good mode of transportation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I appreciate the value of AI in my own work, but "they’re very good coders" and "they make trivial mistakes or hallucinate" seems incongruous. For me, AI tools shine when I know enough about a topic to quickly error check, but not enough where I can code fluently without documentation. I'm sure it will get more useful over time, but that's where it's been for me for the last year or so.
> "they’re very good coders" and "they make trivial mistakes or hallucinate" seems incongruous. It seems that way if you judge them the same way you would human coders, but they’re different. They might be able to do things that veteran coders can’t without spending days on it, and fail at things that beginners can do in half an hour. A car might not be able to traverse difficult terrain as well as a horse, but it do…
> If you’ve played with the most recent AI tools, you know: They’re very good coders, very good legal analysts, very good first drafters of writing, very good image generators. They’re only going to get better. Most of the bullshitters will tip their hand pretty early that they're just hype men for AI. Right off the bat, the fact that AI is disruptive and transforming society is apparently self-evident because they n…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I appreciate the value of AI in my own work, but "they’re very good coders" and "they make trivial mistakes or hallucinate" seems incongruous. For me, AI tools shine when I know enough about a topic to quickly error check, but not enough where I can code fluently without documentation. I'm sure it will get more useful over time, but that's where it's been for me for the last year or so.
> "they’re very good coders" and "they make trivial mistakes or hallucinate" seems incongruous. It seems that way if you judge them the same way you would human coders, but they’re different. They might be able to do things that veteran coders can’t without spending days on it, and fail at things that beginners can do in half an hour. A car might not be able to traverse difficult terrain as well as a horse, but it do…
The sibling comment says it better - it's about predicability of mistakes, and the effort and knowledge necessary to correct them.
Maybe the next generation of models will solve these problems, who knows.