Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Every time, industry leaders are knocked off their perch. Is that really true? The two largest corporations in the world by market cap are Apple and Microsoft, both founded in the 1970s.
Also the wealth of the average worker has been stagnant since the 70's - computers, the internet, etc came and brought tons of wealth, and didn't raise the standard of living. I've never thought about computers that way - they got here, and didn't make everyone's lives better - they just accelerated wealth concentration in the top 1%.
This time, it feels different
201–210 of 249 posts
Re: This time, it feels different
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anybody else feel like smartphones were overall net negative? I like cell phones they fit a particular need that I think most people would agree is a net good. But smart phones? I don't fucking want to see any of this stuff on my phone its just like cigarettes, feels nice but in the long run just makes you feel sicker. And people would say ok just don't get one but I sort of feel like its not just a me thing, most pe…
I guess "it depends"... My internet-connected smart phone allows me to pay securely for things, unlock the public city bikes for local transit, find quickly directions for a place, provide me answers to questions, read books at the cafe, etc... All this without a single wallet or bag of "stuff" dangling over my shoulders. Now... I don't have a facebook account ... YMMV ... :)
A co-worker had to skip lunch last month because he relied on his phone for payments and the app wouldn't let him pay - no explanation given. I keep critical stuff like payment methods separate and have no plans to stop carrying a wallet because of stuff like this.
Re: This time, it feels different
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it is being given only those texts, not the circumstances. All that is can do is associate and surface patterns in the texts - very complex though those patterns may be. It should not be surprising that those patterns are recognizable, and even that they appear 'real', as they are derived from text about our world. However there cannot be any understanding beyond that, just as with the shadows on the wall of Plat…
Are you arguing the humans are not merely looking at the shadows on the cave wall but LLMs are? Or that the shadows that the LLMs sees are fundamentally different / worse than ours? > All that is can do is associate and surface patterns in the texts - very complex though those patterns may be One of the more interesting ideas I’ve heard is that text contains embedded world models that are far richer that we previousl…
Yes quite plausible that extraordinarily complex models are embedded in the text corpus, but these can only relate to the texts themselves, as that is all that exists as far as the LLM is concerned. Again, it should not be a great surprise that they correlate to our real world to some extent, but they cannot go beyond those input texts.
Re: This time, it feels different
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well you need a handful of supervisors and the rest are laid off. It’s easy to say these jobs being eliminated is good when it’s not your job
We shouldn’t keep jobs around just to keep people employed. This kind of insane careerism is probably what’s responsible for the current climate of regulations that makes it difficult for many people to find new work and for companies to open more positions. Changing jobs is a good thing, you would think someone on HN would know that.
Re: This time, it feels different
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
> computers, the internet, etc came and brought tons of wealth, and didn't raise the standard of living Huh?? What world are you living in where the standard of living hasn't increased in the last 50 years?
I'd say that would depend on one's point of view in a couple of key respects: - Are we just discussing the first-world middle class? Obviously if we extend our scope to all of humanity there have been remarkable jumps in standards of living. - Does the idea of 'standard of living' include only access to goods, services, and information or also intangibles like access to safety and (more pertinently to this particular…
Re: This time, it feels different
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also the wealth of the average worker has been stagnant since the 70's - computers, the internet, etc came and brought tons of wealth, and didn't raise the standard of living. I've never thought about computers that way - they got here, and didn't make everyone's lives better - they just accelerated wealth concentration in the top 1%.
> computers, the internet, etc came and brought tons of wealth, and didn't raise the standard of living Huh?? What world are you living in where the standard of living hasn't increased in the last 50 years?
And since 1979 people have far more basic 'necessities' like internet and electronic devices. And other necessities like housing, education, and healthcare have all increased in cost far beyond nominal inflation figures. So a person in this situation is most certainly going to have a substantially lower quality of life in modern times. You have to keep in mind that in the past most families were single bread-winner, so wages and life were organized around the vision of one working individual being able to support at least 3 others, in a nuclear household. It was a very different economic vision than what has emerged in more modern times.
---
The one thing I'd say these numbers miss out on is opportunity. I think in modern times there is dramatically more opportunity, but if you're just going to live a normal, as expected, life without really aggressively going after the opportunities we all have available - then you'd almost certainly be better off living on the median in the 70s than today. And since most people should be expected to live these sort of perfectly average lives, as that's precisely what the average is, that's a real problem.
Re: This time, it feels different
#207> It just repeats patterns > It is just a glorified probabilistic text generator. > It is just a “stochastic parrot”. > It “hallucinates”. > It is not “intelligent” the way humans are. > It does not actually “think” like humans. > It will never get human qualities like humour.[4] > It is snake oil and is no different from any other technology that has come before. > If it causes job losses, new jobs will emerge, like…
Re: This time, it feels different
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
LLM are mathematical models that, given your question, return a sequence of words based on a very complex probability model. The many examples on the internet show that ChatGPT doesn't understand most concepts. For instance, it doesn't know what a book is; it just knows what humans say about books. Finally, OpenAI has already stated there is a limit to how far the current AI models can progress. ChatGPT 5 will eventu…
There is no point in arguing whether LLMs have minds or are conscious, and neither is arguing whether it actually understands any concepts. Neither are LLMs are the first tech to be useful to humans - caculators are invented much earlier. What is interesting is that it’s answering questions in a meaningful way that is competitive to humans. It replaces about 50% of jobs for each field where all work can be done on co…
As translation is now cheaper, as it can be part automated, there is more demand for translation, whereas this was previously too expensive.
The problem with ChatGPT is that you need to specify exactly what you want. Writing text and drawing is often a creative process where you will only know at the end what you want.
We are true and well within the hype curve at the moment.
Re: This time, it feels different
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know what a book is and can reason about it. As a human you can provide answers that go beyond the knowledge you have ingested. For example, if you ask ChatGPT if books can be fluorescent it says no. However, as an adult you know someone somewhere has made a book with fluorescent images, as it is a cool thing. You are combining knowledge from two different fields (books + fluorescence) and establishing the likeli…
lol, really? Me: Can books be fluorescent? GPT-4: While the term "fluorescent" is typically used to describe substances that can absorb light and then re-emit it, often at a different wavelength, there's no inherent reason why a book couldn't be made with fluorescent properties. This could be achieved by using fluorescent ink, dyes, or paints on the cover or the pages, or by incorporating fluorescent fibers into the…
Re: This time, it feels different
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also the wealth of the average worker has been stagnant since the 70's - computers, the internet, etc came and brought tons of wealth, and didn't raise the standard of living. I've never thought about computers that way - they got here, and didn't make everyone's lives better - they just accelerated wealth concentration in the top 1%.
In the 70s the top 1% couldn’t even conceive of the power they’d have in their pockets one day. Today both billionaires and the rest of the world can have access to that same power. We’re all carrying the same phones in our pockets after all.