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

Beliefs that are true for regular software but false when applied to AI

boydkane.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 461 posts

Re: Beliefs that are true for regular software but false when applied to AI

#201

Post by SchemaLoad »

teeray wrote: post #194
freetime2 wrote: post #122

For a real world example of the challenges of harnessing LLMs, look at Apple. Over a year ago they had a big product launch focused on "Apple Intelligence" that was supposed to make heavy use of LLMs for agentic workflows. But all we've really gotten since then are a couple of minor tools for making emojis, summarizing notifications, and proof reading. And they even had to roll back the notification summaries for a w…

> minor tools for making emojis, summarizing notifications, and proof reading. The notification / email summaries are so unbelievably useless too: it’s hardly more work to skim the notification / email that I do anyway.

Like most AI products it feels like they started with a solution first and went searching for the problems. Text messages being too long wasn't a real problem to begin with.

There are some good parts to Apple Intelligence though. I find the priority notifications feature works pretty well, and the photo cleanup tool works pretty well for small things like removing your finger from the corner of a photo, though it's not going to work on huge tasks like removing a whole person from a photo.

Re: Beliefs that are true for regular software but false when applied to AI

#202

Post by Pulcinella »

ben_w wrote: post #127
alecbz wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regularly trying to use LLMs to debug coding issues has convinced me that we're _nowhere_ close to the kind of AGI some are imagining is right around the corner.

Sure, but also the METR study showed the rate of change is t doubles every 7 months where t ~= «duration of human time needed to complete a task, such that SOTA AI can complete same with 50% success»: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.14499 I don't know how long that exponential will continue for, and I have my suspicions that it stops before week-long tasks, but that's the trend-line we're on.

But will it actually get better or will it just get faster and more power efficient at failing to pair parentheses/braces/brackets/quotes?

Re: Beliefs that are true for regular software but false when applied to AI

#203

Post by Ensorceled »

darth_avocado wrote: post #91
vladms wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know personally some CEO-s? I know a couple and they generally seem less empathic than the general population, so I don't think that like/dislike even applies. On the other hand, trying to do something "new" is lots of headaches, so emotions are not always a plus. I could make a parallel to doctors: you don't want a doctor to start crying in a middle of an operation because he feels bad for you, but you can't…

I would say that the parallel is not at all accurate because the relationship between a doctor and a patient undergoing surgery is not the same as the one you and I have with CEOs. And a lot of good doctors have emotions and they use them to influence patient outcomes positively.

Even then, a psychopathic doctor at least has their desired outcomes mostly aligned with the patients.

Re: Beliefs that are true for regular software but false when applied to AI

#204

Post by someothherguyy »

mrkmarron wrote: post #180
AdieuToLogic wrote: post #162

I found this statement particularly relevant: While it’s possible to demonstrate the safety of an AI for a specific test suite or a known threat, it’s impossible for AI creators to definitively say their AI will never act maliciously or dangerously for any prompt it could be given. This possibility is compounded exponentially when MCP[0] is used. 0 - https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol

[flagged]

why make a new language? are there no existing languages comprehensive enough for this?

Re: Beliefs that are true for regular software but false when applied to AI

#205

Post by remexre »

teeray wrote: post #194
freetime2 wrote: post #122

For a real world example of the challenges of harnessing LLMs, look at Apple. Over a year ago they had a big product launch focused on "Apple Intelligence" that was supposed to make heavy use of LLMs for agentic workflows. But all we've really gotten since then are a couple of minor tools for making emojis, summarizing notifications, and proof reading. And they even had to roll back the notification summaries for a w…

> minor tools for making emojis, summarizing notifications, and proof reading. The notification / email summaries are so unbelievably useless too: it’s hardly more work to skim the notification / email that I do anyway.

It does feel like somebody forgot that "from the first sentence or two of the email, you can tell what it's about" was already a rule of good writing...

Re: Beliefs that are true for regular software but false when applied to AI

#206

Post by DrewADesign »

alfalfasprout wrote: post #157
Gigachad wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do prefer that Apple is opting to have everything run on device so you aren’t being exposed to privacy risks or subscriptions. Even if it means their models won’t be as good as ones running on $30,000 GPUs.

It also means that when the VC money runs dry, it's sustainable to run those models on-device vs. losing money running on those $$$$$ GPUs (or requiring consumers to opt for expensive subscriptions).

I’m kind of surprised to see people gloss over this aspect of it when so many folks here are in the “if I buy it, I should own it” camp.

Re: Beliefs that are true for regular software but false when applied to AI

#207

Post by thfuran »

redblacktree wrote: post #86
vladms wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any programming or mathematical question has several correct answers. Huh? If I need to sort the list of integer number of 3,1,2 in ascending order the only correct answer is 1,2,3. And there are multiple programming and mathematical questions with only one correct answer. If you want to say "some programming and mathematical questions have several correct answers" that might hold.

What about multiple notational variations? 1, 2, 3 1,2,3 [1,2,3] 1 2 3 etc.

What about them? It's possible for the question to unambiguously specify the required notational convention.

Re: Beliefs that are true for regular software but false when applied to AI

#208

Post by bobsmooth »

surgical_fire wrote: post #80
xutopia wrote: post #4

The most likely danger with AI is concentrated power, not that sentient AI will develop a dislike for us and use us as "batteries" like in the Matrix.

"AI will take over the world". I hear that. Then I try to use AI for simple code task, writing unit tests for a class, very similar to other unit tests. If fails miserably. Forgets to add an annotation and enters in a death loop of bullshit code generation. Generates test classes that tests failed test classes that test failed test classes and so on. Fascinating to watch. I wonder how much CO2 it generated while fryi…

Most reasonable AI alarmists are not concerned with sentient AI but an AI attached to the nukes that gets into one of those repeating death loops and fires all the missiles.

Re: Beliefs that are true for regular software but false when applied to AI

#209

Post by DrewADesign »

AkelaA wrote: post #169
meonkeys wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It shows up at https://boydkane.com under the link "Why your boss isn't worried about advanced AI". Must be some kind of sub-heading, but not part of the actual article / blog post. Presumably it's a phrase you might hear from a boss who sees AI as similar to (and as benign/known/deterministic as) most other software, per TFA

In my experience it’s usually the engineers that aren’t worried about AI, because they see the limitations clearly every time they use it. It’s pretty obvious that whole thing is severely overhyped and unreliable. Your boss (or more likely, your bosses’ bosses’s boss) is the one deeply worried about it. Though mostly worried about being left behind by their competitors and how their company’s use of AI (or lack there…

It depends on where you are in the chain, and what kind of engineering you’re doing. I think a lot of engineers are so focused on the logistics, capabilities, and flaws, and so used to being indispensable, that they don’t viscerally get that they’re standing on the wrong side of the tree branch they’re sawing through. AI does not need to replace a single engineer before increased productivity means we’ll have way too many engineers, which mean jobs are impossible to get, and the salaries are in the shitter. Middle managers are terrified because they know they’re not long for this (career) world. Upper managers are having 3 champagne lunches because they see big bonuses on the far side of skyrocketing profits and cratering payroll costs.

Re: Beliefs that are true for regular software but false when applied to AI

#210

Post by bobsmooth »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #186
noir_lord wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC the original idea was that the machines used our brain capacity as a distributed array but then they decided batteries was easier to understand while been sillier, just burn the carbon they are feeding us, it’s more efficient.

If I could write the matrix reverted, Neo would discover that the last people put themselves in the pods because the world was so fucked up, and the machines had been caretakers that were trying to protect them from themselves. That revision would make the first movie perfect.

Given that the first Matrix was a paradise that's pretty much canon if you ignore the duracell.
Post reply on HN