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

Global Intelligence Crisis

citriniresearch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 202 posts

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#171

Post by GeoAtreides »

munksbeer wrote: post #155
the__prestige wrote: post #135

Where do I even begin? Speed is unrealistic. It compresses a decade of enterprise adoption into 18 months. Organizations don't restructure at the speed of a demo. And if it were true, companies would also stop buying AI once their customers are broke and revenue is falling. The "rational firm" logic cuts both ways. "No new jobs" is asserted, not argued. It dismisses 200 years of counter-evidence in two sentences and…

I don't pretend to know how all of this will unfold but at the very least your argument has more depth and nuance than the average response to all this which is - only a few people will control everything and the rest will scrape around in the dust, if we're allowed to live. Just no depth of thought to those sort of replies at all, on a site where curiosity and deeper thinking is encouraged.

A site with vote ranking or indeed any ranking will never encourage curiosity and deep thinking, just group thinking

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#172

Post by GeoAtreides »

jonwinstanley wrote: post #164
GeoAtreides wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>AI makes everything cheaper, the purchasing power of remaining income rises hahaha, hilarious, imagine thinking prices will go down instead of companies just pocketing the difference >People don't optimize purchases like machines correct, machine optimize purchases like machines. that was the author point >Regulation would arrive fast. what regulation? "Stop using AI or you will get fined?" "Extra tax on AI companie…

Presumably price would reduce due to the ease of which people can spin up competitors?

OP was talking about commodities, not SaaS

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#173

Post by munksbeer »

franktankbank wrote: post #170
munksbeer wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not an economist but you're just echoing a trivially shallow meme. Research: - Where does most money come from? - What are these gazillion AI agents creating if no-one has any money to buy anything? - What is this "wealth" of this small group of ultra-rich individuals? Who is buying the shares of their companies to make them wealthy? Who is buying their products? The economy must be self balancing. There is no ot…

This is the dumb meme. Those who own the automation don't have any non-moral non-ethical reason to feed and house the masses. Money is a proxy for power.

It's like you didn't even read my post.

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#174

Post by Rover222 »

I think the biggest counter argument to this essay is that the demand for software is infinite. It's a feedback loop of society running on increasingly complex software. This project is never "done". Even as code implementation becomes ever cheaper, the demand scales at least as quickly as the implementation. Developers using these tools are already 95% removed from writing code, but a lot of us are working harder than ever. Company ambitions just scale with what's possible in their budget.

I mean yes, maybe the humans will just be out of the loop in the budget if agents can do it all. But maybe it's a long tail of getting there. Or maybe it happens suddenly. Who the hell knows. Interesting times.

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#175

Post by jacobr1 »

riku_iki wrote: post #105
krackers wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you going to choose to buy your protein bar online from mysteryBargainBar[.]com for a $1 savings, or just pick it up as part of your local grocery trip? > I still remember when people were scared to buy things on the internet People still /are/ scared to buy things from Amazon for things that go on or in their body.

> Are you going to choose to buy your protein bar online from mysteryBargainBar[.]com for a $1 savings, or just pick it up as part of your local grocery trip? 1. I buy in bulk. 2. I check amazon vs walmart usually.

Yep.

ChatAI - show the top 50 online retailers by revenue in the US and note any that have credible new stories about quality control issues. Save all of them except StoreX and StoreY in your list you use for comparison shopping.

Or maybe another one, scan all my credit card purchases for all time that you have history and record all the stores.

Done. And plenty of third party sites (consumer reports, wirecutter, etc...) will do this kind of thing too. And you could perhaps transitively trust them - either view direct lists or just scraping the places they recommend.

And the average person doesn't need to figure this out ... skills encoding this will propagate.

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#177

Post by jacobr1 »

jahsome wrote: post #136
threethirtytwo wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you’re saying I’m nuts? Do you go to peoples faces and say that? You’re not nuts. But you are trying to twist the logic to justify your own situation. The correct word to characterize this is “manipulative”. Clearly, no one is nuts on this thread but some people are just dicks. It’s completely normal for people to not be literal, and to also mistakenly say something.

I didn't say you are nuts, I said your statement is. The distinction should be "obvious" no? Here's a hint though: normal is a myth.

Normal isn't a myth. The mistake people make is taking the mode as normal, or worse mistaking their own experience as normal. But humans generally do tend to have a range of common behaviors that a significant percentage of people fit into. And you probably can even predict it to a reasonable degree, if you have some other metadata to correlate which sub-group they might correspond to.

Normal in the sense of "you can model a distribution of human behavioral processes or outcomes" that encompasses, say, 95% of humans in a given culture or geography is very much a thing you can do. And I'd go as far as to say a large chunk of the mental bandwidth of the average person is running those simulation models just to operate in a multi-human-agent world.

(If you want to say we observe bimodal or other multi-peaked distributions in practices rather than "normal" ones, I will strongly agree, but that usually isn't the objection when people say "normal is a myth")

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#179

Post by malshe »

> A competent developer working with Claude Code or Codex could now replicate the core functionality of a mid-market SaaS product in weeks. Not perfectly or with every edge case handled, but well enough that the CIO reviewing a $500k annual renewal started asking the question “what if we just built this ourselves?”

This has been repeated ad nauseam in the media without any bearing to reality. I'm not a software developer but one has to just use any enterprise grade software to develop an appreciation for how difficult it is to maintain it. And that's just from a user's perspective.

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#180

Post by fweimer »

ndriscoll wrote: post #161
fweimer wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A human can't search 10 apps for the best rates / lowest fees but an agent can. Why would those apps permit access by agents? It's always been the case that “agents” could watch content with ads, so that the users can watch the same content later, but without ads. The technology never went mainstream, though. I expect agents posing as humans would have a similar whiff of illegality, preventing wide adoption. Local…

What whiff of illegality? Personal recording and ad skipping DVRs are completely legal products (at least in the US). Courts have ruled on this.

As a U.S. consumer, can you buy a DVR that can record HDCP streams (without importing it yourself from a different country)? Even one that does not automatically edit out ads?
Post reply on HN