Live data from Hacker News

AI is different

antirez.com

141–150 of 920 posts

Re: AI is different

#141
post #7

In every technology wave so far, we've disrupted many existing jobs. However we've also opened up new kinds of jobs. And, because it is easier to retrain humans than build machines for those jobs, we wound up with more and better jobs. This is the first technology wave that doesn't just displace humans, but which can be trained to the new job opportunities more easily than humans can. Right now it can't replace human…

Far from an expert on this topic, but what differentiates AI from other non physical efficiency tools? (I'm actually asking not contesting).

Won't companies always want to compete with one another, so simply using AI won't be enough. We will always want better and better software, more features, etc. so that race will never end until we get an AI fully capable of managing all parts (100%) of the development process (which we don't seem to be close to yet).

From Excel to Autocad there's been a lot of tools that were expected to decrease the amount of work ended up actually increasing it due to having new capabilities and the constant demand for innovation. I suppose the difference would be if we think AI will continue to get really good, or if it'll become SO good that it is plug and play and completely replaces people.

Re: AI is different

#142
I think there is an unspoken implication built into the assumption that AI will be able to replace a wide variety of existing jobs, and that is that those current jobs are not being done efficiently. This is sometimes articulated as bullshit jobs, etc. and if AI takes over those the immediate next thing that will happen is that AI will look around ask why _anyone_ was doing that job in the first place. The answer was articulated 70 years ago in [0].

The only question is how much fat there is to trim as the middle management is wiped out because the algorithms have determined that they are completely useless and mostly only increase cost over time.

Now, all the AI companies think that they are going to be deriving revenue from that fat, but those revenue streams are going to disappear entirely because a huge number of purely politic positions inside corporations will vanish, because if they do not the corporation will go bankrupt competing with other companies that have already cut the fat. There won't be additional revenue streams that get spent on the bullshit. The good news is that labor can go somewhere else, and we will need it due to a shrinking global population, but the cushy bullshit management job is likely disappear.

At some point AI agents will cease to be sycophantic and when fed the priors for the current situation that a company is in will simply tell it like it is, and might even be smart enough to get the executives to achieve the goal they actually stated instead of simply puffing up their internal political position, which might include a rather surprising set of actions that could even lead to the executive being fired if the AI determines that they are getting in the way of the goal [1].

Fun times ahead.

0. https://web.archive.org/web/20180705215319/https://www.econo... 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evitable_Conflict

Re: AI is different

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did it not go well for the avg person? The status quo does not go well for the avg person.

Most of the people who died in The Terror were commoners who had merely not been sympathetic enough to the revolution. And then that sloppiness lead to reactionary violence and there was a lot of back and forth until Napoleon took power and was pretty much a king in all but heritage. Hopefully we can be a bit more precise this time around.

[dead]

Re: AI is different

#144

> The future may reduce the economic prosperity and push humanity to switch to some different economic system (maybe a better system). Markets don’t want to accept that. [Emphasis added] What a silly premise. Markets don't care . All markets do is express the collective opinion; in the short term as a voting machine, in the long term as a weighing machine. Seeing a real uptick of socio-policital prognostication from…

> “… as a voting… as a weighing…” I’m sure I remember that as a graham, munger, or buffet quote.

> “not even wrong” - nice, one of my favorites from Pauli.

Re: AI is different

#146
post #7

In every technology wave so far, we've disrupted many existing jobs. However we've also opened up new kinds of jobs. And, because it is easier to retrain humans than build machines for those jobs, we wound up with more and better jobs. This is the first technology wave that doesn't just displace humans, but which can be trained to the new job opportunities more easily than humans can. Right now it can't replace human…

[deleted]

Re: AI is different

#147
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI has already rendered academic take-home assignments moot. No other tech has had an impact like that, even the internet.

What? The internet did that ages ago. We just pretended it didn't because some students didn't know how to use Google.

You are mistaken, Google could not write a bespoke English essay for you. Complete with intentional mistakes to throw off the professor.

Re: AI is different

#148

This is an accurate assessment. I do feel that there is a routine bias on HN to underplay AI. I think it's people not wanting to lose control or relative status in the world. AI is an existential threat to the unique utility of humans, which has been the last line of defense against absolute despotism (i.e. a tyrannical government will not kill all its citizens because it still needs them to perform jobs. If humans a…

I think AI is still in the weird twilight zone that it was when it first came out in that it's great sometimes and also terrible. I still get hallucinations when I check a response I get with ChatGPT on Google.

On the one hand, what it says can't be trusted, on the other, I have debugged code I have written where I was unable to find the bug myself, and ChatGPT found it.

I also think a reason AI's are popular and the companies haven't gone under is that probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of people are getting responses that have hallucinations, but the user doesn't know it. I fell into this trap myself after ChatGPT first came out. I became addicted to asking anything and it seemed like it was right. It wasn't until later I started realizing that it was hallucinating information. How prevalent this phenomena is is hard to say but I still think it's pernicious.

But as I said before, there are still use cases for AI and that's what makes judging it so difficult.

Re: AI is different

#149
post #59

I'm skeptical of arguments like this. If we look at most impactful technologies since the year 2000, AI is not even in my top 3. Social networking, mobile computing, and cloud computing have all done more to alter society and daily life than has AI. And yes, I recognize that AI has already created profound change, in that every software engineer now depends heavily on copilots, in that education faces a major integri…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN