Point taken, but it's hard to take a talk seriously when it has a graph showing AI becoming 80% of GDP! What does the "P" even stand for then?
Pokens
Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden
231–240 of 663 posts
Re: Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans still play chess and horses are still around as a species. (Disclaimer: this is me trying to be optimistic in a very grim and depressing situation)
B2C businesses need consumers. If AIs take all the jobs, then most of the population-minus the small minority who are independently wealthy and can live off their investments-go broke, and can’t afford to buy anything any more. Then all the B2C businesses go broke. Then all the B2B businesses lose all their B2C business customers and go broke. Then the stock market crashes and the independently wealthy lose all their…
[deleted]
Re: Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden
#233I think my software engineering job will be safe so long as big companies keep using average code as their training set. This is because the average developer creates unnecessary complexity which creates more work for me. The way the average dev structures their code requires like 10x the number of lines as I do and at least 10x the amount of time to maintain... The interest on technical debt compounds like interest…
Unnecessary complexity isn’t much of a problem when the code is virtually free to maintain or throw away and replace.
Depends on the size and complexity of the problem that the system is solving. For very complex problems, even the most succinct solution will be complex and not all parts of the code can be throwaway code. You have to start stacking the layers of abstractions and some code becomes critical. Like think of the Linux Kernel, you can't throw away the Linux Kernel. You can't throw away Chromium or the V8 engine... Millions of systems depend on those. If they had issues or vulnerabilities and nobody to maintain, it would be a major problem for the global economy.
Re: Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
B2C businesses need consumers. If AIs take all the jobs, then most of the population-minus the small minority who are independently wealthy and can live off their investments-go broke, and can’t afford to buy anything any more. Then all the B2C businesses go broke. Then all the B2B businesses lose all their B2C business customers and go broke. Then the stock market crashes and the independently wealthy lose all their…
This is the optimistic take, too. There are plenty of countries which don’t care about votes, indeed there are dictators that don’t care about their subjects, they only care about outcomes for themselves. The economic argument only works in capitalism and rule of law - and that’s assuming money is worth anything anymore.
The Chinese Communist Party is obsessed with social stability. Do you think they’ll allow AI to take all the jobs, destroying China’s domestic economy in the process? Or will they enact human protectionism regulations? What Would Xi Jinping Do?
Re: Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
Productivity gains are more likely to be used to increase margins (profits and therefore value to shareholders) then it is to reduce work hours. At least since the Industrial Revolution, and probably before, the only advance that has led to shorter work weeks is unions and worker protections. Not technology. Technology may create more surplus (food, goods, etc) but there’s no guarantee what form that surplus will rea…
Margins require a competitive edge. If productivity gains are spread throughout a competitive industry, margins will not get bigger; prices will go down.
That feels optimistic. This kind of naive free market ideology seems to rarely manifest in lower prices.
Re: Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden
#236And what happened to human population? It skyrocketed. So humans are going to get replaced by AI and human population will skyrocket again? This analogy doesn't work.
Re: Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans still play chess and horses are still around as a species. (Disclaimer: this is me trying to be optimistic in a very grim and depressing situation)
B2C businesses need consumers. If AIs take all the jobs, then most of the population-minus the small minority who are independently wealthy and can live off their investments-go broke, and can’t afford to buy anything any more. Then all the B2C businesses go broke. Then all the B2B businesses lose all their B2C business customers and go broke. Then the stock market crashes and the independently wealthy lose all their…
> B2C businesses need consumers
Businesses need consumers when those consumers are necessary to provide something in return (e.g. labor). If I want beef and only have grass, my grass business needs people with cattle wanting my grass so that we can trade grass for beef, certainly. But if technology can provide me beef (and anything else I desire) without involving any other people, I don't need a business anymore. Businesses is just a tool to facilitate trade. No need for trade, no need for business.
Re: Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden
#238An engine performs a simple mechanical operation. Chess is a closed domain. An AI that could fully automate the job of these new hires, rather than doing RAG over a knowledge base to help onboard them, would have to be far more general than either an engine or a chessbot. This generality used to be foregrounded by the term "AGI." But six months to a year ago when the rate of change in LLMs slowed down, and those exci…
I think a lot about how much we altered our environment to suit cars. They're not a perfect solution to transport, but they've been so useful we've built tons more road to accommodate them.
So, while I don't think AGI will happen any time soon, I wonder what 'roads' we'll build to squeeze the most out of our current AI. Probably tons of power generation.
Re: Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden
#239Horses eat feed. Cars eat gasoline. LLMs eat electricity, and progress may even now be finding its limits in that arena. Besides the fact that just more compute and context size aren’t the right kind of progress. LLMs aren’t coming for your job any more than computer vision is, for a lot of reasons, but I’ll list two more: 1. Even if LLMs made everyone 10x as productive, most companies will still have more work to do…
"The only reason to reduce headcount is to remove people who already weren’t providing much value." I wish corporations really acted this rationally. At least where I live hospitals fired most secretaries and assistants to doctors a long time ago. The end result? High-paid doctors spending significant portion of their time on administrative and bureaucratic tasks that were previously handled by those secretaries, pre…
I'm a full-stack developer, Recently i find that almost 90% of my work deadlines have been brought forward, and the bosses' scheduling has become stricter. the coworker who is particularly good at pair programming with AI prefers to reduce his/her scheduling(kind of unconsciously)。Work is sudden，but salary remains steady。what a bummer
Re: Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden
#240I think my software engineering job will be safe so long as big companies keep using average code as their training set. This is because the average developer creates unnecessary complexity which creates more work for me. The way the average dev structures their code requires like 10x the number of lines as I do and at least 10x the amount of time to maintain... The interest on technical debt compounds like interest…
Humans don’t learn to write messy complex code. Messy, complex code is the default, writing clean code takes skill. You’re assuming the LLM produces extra complexity because it’s mimicking human code. I think it’s more likely that LLMs output complex code because it requires less thought and planning, and LLMs are still bad at planning.
Totally agree with the first observation. The default human state seems to be confusion. I've seen this over and over in junior coders.
It's often very creative how junior devs approach problems. It's like they don't fully understand what they're doing and the code itself is part of the exploration and brainstorming process trying to find the solution as they write... Very different from how senior engineers approach coding when it's like you don't even write your first line until you have a clear high level picture of all the parts and how they will fit together.
About the second point, I've been under the impression that because LLMs are trained on average code, they infer that the bugs and architectural flaws are desirable... So if it sees your code is poorly architected, it will generate more of that poorly architected code on top. If it sees hacks in your codebase, it will assume hacks are OK and give you more hacks.
When I use an LLM on a poorly written codebase, it does very poorly and it's hard to solve any problem or implement any feature and it keeps trying to come up with nasty hacks... Very frustrating trial and error process; eats up so many tokens.
But when I use the same LLM on one of my carefully architected side projects, it usually works extremely well, never tries to hack around a problem. It's like having good code lets you tap into a different part of its training set. It's not just because your architecture is easier to build on top, but also it follows existing coding conventions better and always addresses root causes, no hacks. Its code style looks more like that of a senior dev. You need to keep the feature requests specific and short though.