AI is different • Hacker News Board

Re: AI is different

#161

Post by xpe » Sat, Aug 16, 2025, 5:45 AM UTC

drooby wrote: post #53

btilly wrote: 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…

Carpenters, landscapers, roofers, plumbers, electricians, elderly care, nurses, cooks, servers, bakers, musicians, actors, artists... Those jobs are probably still a couple decades plus off from displacement. some possibly never, And we will need them in higher numbers.. and perhaps it's ironic because these are some of the oldest professions. Everything we do is in service of paying for our housing, transportation,…

I would be cautious to avoid any narrative anchoring on “old versus new” professions. I would seek out other ways of thinking about it.

For example, I predict humans will maintain competitive advantage in areas where the human body excels due to its shape, capabilities, or energy efficiency.

Re: AI is different

#162

Post by notyourav » Sat, Aug 16, 2025, 5:47 AM UTC

atleastoptimal wrote: post #128

fallous wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything? How about legal liability for the car killing someone? Are all the self-driving vendors stepping up and accepting full legal liability for the outcomes of their non-deterministic software?

Thousands have died directly due to known defects in manufactured cars. Those companies (Ford, others) still are operating today. Even if driverless cars killed more people than humans they would see mass adoption eventually. However they are subject to farr higher scrutiny than human drivers and even so make fewer mistakes, avoid accidents more frequently and can't get drunk, tired, angry, or distracted.

A faulty break pad or an engine doesn’t take decisions that might endanger people. Self-driving cars do. They might also get hacked pretty thoroughly.

For the same reason, I’d probably never buy a home robot with more capabilities then a vacuum cleaner.

Re: AI is different

#163

Post by ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 » Sat, Aug 16, 2025, 5:47 AM UTC

aurareturn wrote: post #16

We are not there, yet, but if AI could replace a sizable amount of workers, the economic system will be put to a very hard test. Moreover, companies could be less willing to pay for services that their internal AIs can handle or build from scratch. There will be fewer very large companies in terms of human size. There will be many more companies that are much smaller because you don't need as many workers to do the s…

We aren't even close to that yet. The argument is an appeal to novelty, fallacy of progress, linear thinking, etc.

LLMs aren't solving NLU. They are mimicking a solution. They definitely aren't solving artificial general intelligence.

They are good language generators, okay search engines, and good pattern matchers (enabled by previous art).

Language by itself isn't intelligence. However, plenty of language exists that can be analyzed and reconstructed in patterns to mimic intelligence (utilizing the original agents' own intelligence (centuries of human authors) and the filter agents' own intelligence (decades of human sentiment on good vs bad takes)).

Multimodality only takes you so far, and you need a lot of "modes" to disguise your pattern matcher as an intelligent agent.

But be impressed! Let the people getting rich off of you being impressed massage you into believing the future holds things it may not.

Re: AI is different

#164

Post by andrei_says_ » Sat, Aug 16, 2025, 5:48 AM UTC

schneems wrote: post #69

chrisco255 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but which can be trained to the new job opportunities more easily than humans can What makes you think that? Self driving cars have had untold billions of dollars in reaearch and decades in applied testing, iteration, active monitoring, etc and it still has a very long tail of unaddressed issues. They've been known to ignore police traffic redirections, they've run right through construction barriers, and recently…

A few months ago I saw one driverless car maybe every three days. Now I see roughly 3-5 every day. I get that it’s taken a long time and a lot of hype that hasn’t panned out. But once the tech works and it’s just about juicing the scale then things shift rapidly. Even if you think “oh that’s the next generation’s problem” if there is a chance you’re wrong, or if you want to be kind to the next generation: now is the…

Not sure how exactly politicians will jump from “minimal wages don’t have to be livable wages” and “people who are able to work should absolutely not have access to free healthcare” and “any tax-supported benefits are actually undeserved entitlements and should be eliminated” to “everyone deserves a universal basic income”.

Re: AI is different

#165

Post by xpe » Sat, Aug 16, 2025, 5:48 AM UTC

OneMorePerson wrote: post #141

btilly wrote: 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 (…

> what differentiates AI from other non physical efficiency tools?

At some point: (1) general intelligence; i.e. adaptivity; (2) self replication; (3) self improvement.

Re: AI is different

#166

Post by gamerDude » Sat, Aug 16, 2025, 5:48 AM UTC

I don't think I agree. I think it's the same and there is great potential for totally new things to appear and for us to work on.

For example, one path may be: AI, Robotics, space travel all move forward in leaps and bounds.

Then there could be tons of work in creation from material things from people who didn't have the skills before and physical goods gets a huge boost. We travel through space and colonize new planets, dealing with new challenges and environments that we haven't dealt with before.

Another path: most people get rest and relaxation as the default life path, and the rest get to pursue their hobbies as much as they want since the AI and robots handle all the day to day.

Re: AI is different

#167

Post by nine_k » Sat, Aug 16, 2025, 5:50 AM UTC

btilly wrote: 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…

> And, because it is easier to retrain humans than build machines for those jobs, we wound up with more and better jobs.

I think it did not work like that.

Automatic looms displaced large numbers of weavers, skilled professionals, which did not find immediately find jobs tending dozens of mechanical looms. (Mr Ludd was one of these displaced professionals.)

Various agricultural machines and chemical products displaced colossal numbers of country people which had to go to cities looking for industrial jobs; US agriculture used to employ 50% of workforce in 1880 and only 10% in 1930.

The advent of internet displaced many in the media industry, from high-caliber journalists to those who worked in classified ads newspapers.

All these disruptions created temporary crises, because there was no industry that was ready to immediately employ these people.

Re: AI is different

#168

Post by andrei_says_ » Sat, Aug 16, 2025, 5:50 AM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #42

btilly wrote: 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…

> but which can be trained to the new job opportunities more easily than humans can What makes you think that? Self driving cars have had untold billions of dollars in reaearch and decades in applied testing, iteration, active monitoring, etc and it still has a very long tail of unaddressed issues. They've been known to ignore police traffic redirections, they've run right through construction barriers, and recently…

As someone who lives in LA, I don’t think self-driving cars existed at the time of the Rodney King LA riots and I am not aware of any other riots since.

Re: AI is different

#169

Post by andrei_says_ » Sat, Aug 16, 2025, 5:53 AM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #30

jazzyjackson wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know maybe they can grow trees and build houses.

The robots? I see this happening soon, especially for home construction.

How exactly?

In the U.S. houses are built out of wood. What robot will do that kind of work?

Re: AI is different

#170

Post by ip26 » Sat, Aug 16, 2025, 5:53 AM UTC

btilly wrote: 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…

For the moment, perhaps it could be jobs that LLMs can’t be trained on. New jobs, niche jobs, secret or undocumented jobs…

It’s a common point now that LLMs don’t seem to be able to apply knowledge about one thing to how a different, unfamiliar thing works. Maybe that will wind up being our edge, for a time.