Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI is different

antirez.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 920 posts

Re: AI is different

#171

Post by solumunus »

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…

We also may not need to worry about it for a long time. I’m more and more falling on this side. LLM’s are hitting diminishing returns so until there’s a new innovation (can’t see any on the horizon yet) I’m not concerned for my career.

Re: AI is different

#173

Post by idontpost »

andrei_says_ wrote: post #168
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…

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.

[dead]

Re: AI is different

#174

Post by xpe »

forgetfulness wrote: post #52
LPisGood wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do they have to work?

Because otherwise you'd have to convince AI-owners and select professionals to let go of their wealth to give a comfortable and fulfilling life of leisure to the unemployed. More likely it will look like the current welfare schemes of many countries, now add mass boredom leading to unrest. Sam Altman has expressed a preference for paying people in vouchers for using his chatbots to kill time: https://basicincomecanad…

> Because otherwise you'd have to convince AI-owners and select professionals to let go of their wealth to give a comfortable and fulfilling life of leisure to the unemployed.

Not necessarily. Such forces could be outvoted or out maneuvered.

> More likely it will look like the current welfare schemes of many countries..,

Maybe, maybe not. It might take the form of UBI or some other form that we haven’t seen in practice.

> now add mass boredom leading to unrest.

So many assumptions. There is no need to just assume any particular distribution of boredom across the future population of the world. Making predictions about social unrest is even more complicated.

Deep Utopia (Bostrom) is an excellent read that extensively discusses various options if things go well.

Re: AI is different

#175

Post by Waterluvian »

The thing that blows me away is that I woke up one day and was confronted with a chat bot that could communicate in near perfect English.

I dunno why exactly but that’s what felt the most stunning about this whole era. It can screw up the number of fingers in an image or the details of a recipe or misidentify elements of an image, etc. but I’ve never seen it make a typo or use improper grammar or whatnot.

Re: AI is different

#176

Post by xpe »

jmathai wrote: post #28
aurareturn wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 humans for a lot of important things. But as its capabilities improve, what do displaced humans transition to? Assuming AI doesn't get better than humans at everything, humans will be supervising and directing AIs.

I’m not sure if that’s meant to be reassuring or not. It’s hard for me to imagine that AI won’t be as good or better than me at most things I do. It’s quite a sobering feeling.

More people need to feel this. Too many people deny even the possibility, not based out of logic, but rather out of ignorance or subconscious factors such as fear or irrelevance.

Re: AI is different

#177

Post by iLoveOncall »

> However, if AI avoids plateauing long enough

I'm not sure how someone can seriously write this after the release of GPT-5.

Models have started to plateau since ChatGPT came out (3 years ago) and GPT-5 has been the final nail in this coffin.

Re: AI is different

#178

Post by ekunazanu »

bscphil wrote: post #151
schneems wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ive never taken one. They seem nice though. On the other hand, the Tesla “robotaxi” scares the crap out of me. No lidar and seems to drive more aggressively. The Mark Rober YouTube of a Tesla plowing into a road-runner style fake tunnel is equal parts hilarious and nightmare fuel when you realize that’s what’s next to your kid biking down the street.

> Mark Rober YouTube of a Tesla plowing into a road-runner style fake tunnel I understand the argument for augmenting your self-driving systems with LIDAR. What I don't really understand is what videos like this tell us. The comparison case for a "road-runner style fake tunnel" isn't LIDAR, it's humans, right? And while I'm sure there are cases where a human driver would spot the fake tunnel and stop in time, that is…

> Is a Tesla any worse than you at spotting booby trapped roads

That would've been been the case if all laws, opinions and purchasing decisions were made by everyone acting rationally. Even if self driving cars are safer than human drivers, it just takes a few crashes to damage their reputation. It has to be much, much safer than humans for mass adoption. Ideally also safer than the competition, if you're comparing specific companies.

Re: AI is different

#179

Post by xgkickt »

bamboozled wrote: post #75
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…

It’s probably the only technology that is designed to replace humans as its primary goal. It’s the VC dream.

I do wonder if the amount they're spending on it is going to be cost effective versus letting humans continue doing the work.

Re: AI is different

#180

Post by CamperBob2 »

lightbritefight wrote: post #100
CamperBob2 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self-driving cars are a political problem, not a technical problem. A functioning government would put everything from automation-friendly signaling standards to battery-swapping facilities into place. We humans used to do that sort of thing, but not anymore, so... bring on the AI. It won't work as well as it might otherwise be able to, but it'll probably kill fewer humans on the road at the end of the day. A low bar…

Self-driving car companies dont want a unfiied signalling platform or other "open for all" infrastructure updates. They want to own self-driving, to lock you into a subscription on their platform. Literally the only open source self driving platform, from trillion to billion to million dollar companies is comma.ai, founded by Geohot. Thats it. Its actually very good, and I bet they would welcome these upgrades, but t…

Yeah, that must be it. It's a conspiracy.
Post reply on HN