131–140 of 608 posts
Or put differently we've managed to hype this to the moon but somehow complete failure (see studies about zero impact on productivity) seem plausible. And similarly kills all jobs seems plausible.
That's an insane amount of conflicting opinions being help in the air at same time
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The old shrinking markets aka lump of labour fallacy. It's a bit like dreaming of that mythical day, when all of the work will be done.
No it's not that. Tell me, when was the last time you visited your shoe cobbler? How about your travel agent? Have you chatted with your phone operator recently? The lump labour fallacy says it's a fallacy that automation reduces the net amount of human labor, importantly, across all industries. It does not say that automation won't eliminate or reduce jobs in specific industries. It's an argument that jobs lost to a…
There is a whole lot of marketing propping up the valuations of "AI" companies, a large influx of new users pumping out supremely shoddy software, and a split in a minority of users who either report a boost in productivity or little to no practical benefits from using these tools. The result of all this momentum is arguably net negative for the industry and the world.
This is in no way comparable to changes in the footwear, travel, and telecom industries.
In the latest interview with Claude Code's author: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/lennys-podcast-product... , Boris said that writing code is a solved problem. This brings me to a hypothetical question: what if engineers stop contributing to open source, in which case would AI still be powerful enough to learn the knowledge of software development in the future? Or is the field of computer science plateaued to…
That is the same team that has an app that used React for TUI, that uses gigabytes to have a scrollback buffer, and that had text scrolling so slow you could get a coffee in between. And that then had the gall to claim writing a TUI is as hard as a video game. (It clearly must be harder, given that most dev consoles or text interfaces in video games consistently use less than ~5% CPU, which at that point was complete…
In the latest interview with Claude Code's author: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/lennys-podcast-product... , Boris said that writing code is a solved problem. This brings me to a hypothetical question: what if engineers stop contributing to open source, in which case would AI still be powerful enough to learn the knowledge of software development in the future? Or is the field of computer science plateaued to…
However, the risk isn't just a loss of "truth," but model collapse. Without the divergent, creative, and often weird contributions of open-source humans, AI risks stagnating into a linear combination of its own previous outputs. In the long run, killing the commons doesn't just make the labs powerful. It might make the technology itself hit a ceiling because it's no longer being fed novel human problem-solving at scale.
Humans will likely continue to drive consensus building around standards. The governance and reliability benefits of open source should grow in value in an AI-codes-it-first world.
Petition to make "AI is not X, but Y" articles banned or limited in some way.
Humans don’t have an internal notion of “fact” or “truth.” They generate statistically plausible text. Reliability comes from scaffolding: retrieval, tools, validation layers. Without that, fluency can masquerade as authority. The interesting question isn’t whether they’re coworkers or exoskeletons. It’s whether we’re mistaking rhetoric for epistemology.
> LLMs aren’t built around truth as a first-class primitive. neither are humans > They optimize for next-token probability and human approval, not factual verification. while there are outliers, most humans also tend to tell people what they want to hear and to fit in. > factuality is emergent and contingent, not enforced by architecture. like humans; as far as we know, there is no "factuality" gene, and we lie to ou…
You're just indulging in sort of idle cynical judgement of people. To lie well even takes careful truthful evaluation of the possible effects of that lie and the likelihood and consequences of being caught. If you yourself claim to have observed a lie, and can verify that it was a lie, then you understand a truth; you're confounding truthfulness with honesty.
So that's the (obvious) distinction. A distributed algorithm that predicts likely strings of words doesn't do any of that, and doesn't have any concerns or consequences. It doesn't exist at all (even if calculation is existence - maybe we're all reductively just calculators, right?) after your query has run. You have to save a context and feed it back into an algorithm that hasn't changed an iota from when you ran it the last time. There's no capacity to evaluate anything.
You'll know we're getting closer to the fantasy abstract AI of your imagination when a system gets more out of the second time it trains on the same book than it did the first time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And your muscles degrade, a pretty good analogy
Use the exoskeleton at the warehouse to reduce stress and injury; just keep lifting weights at home to not let yourself atrophy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do we care about this? Chess AI have long been solved problems and LLMs are just an overly brute forced approach. They will never become very efficient chess players. The correct solution is to have a conventional chess AI as a tool and use the LLM as a front end for humanized output. A software engineer who proposes just doing it all via raw LLM should be fired.
It's a proxy for generalized reasoning. The point isn't that LLMs are the best AI architecture for chess.
Reasoning would be more like the car wash question.
The amount of "It's not X it's Y" type commentary suggests to me that A) nobody knows and B) there is solid chance this ends up being either all true or all false Or put differently we've managed to hype this to the moon but somehow complete failure (see studies about zero impact on productivity) seem plausible. And similarly kills all jobs seems plausible. That's an insane amount of conflicting opinions being help i…