Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crazy how the two most hyped and funded technologies of the decade were: energy wasting fake money for criminals and energy wasting plagiarism machines.
[flagged]
[deleted]
2025: The Year in LLMs
251–260 of 643 posts
Re: 2025: The Year in LLMs
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many people are employed at the average data center? A few dozen? Versus a steel mill, that’s nothing. A chicken plant in Nebraska closed down this last month. 3200 people lost their jobs. You think Meta will fill it with GPUs and the whole town will have jobs again?
Many more are employed while building it. And they will never stop building. It's modern version of rail. But instead of distances it will cover the area.
Will local folks get those jobs to build the data center?
And if so, what happens to those builders once the data center is built?
Re: 2025: The Year in LLMs
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey, I'm not the OG commentator, why do I have to explain myself! :) When Fernando Alonso (best rookie btw) goes from 0-60 in 2.4 seconds in his Aston Martin, is it reasonable to assume he will near the speed of light in 20 seconds?
> Hey, I'm not the OG commentator, why do I have to explain myself! :) The issue is that you're not acknowledging or replying to people's explanations for _why_ they see this as exponential growth. It's almost as if you skimmed through the meat of the comment and then just re-phrased your original idea. > When Fernando Alonso (best rookie btw) goes from 0-60 in 2.4 seconds in his Aston Martin, is it reasonable to ass…
It's not in me to somehow disprove claims of exponential growth when there isn't even evidence provided of it.
My point with the F1 comparison is to say that a short period of rapid improvement doesn't imply exponential growth and it's about as weird to expect that as it is for an f1 car to reach the speed of light. It's possible you know, the regulations are changing for next season - if Leclerc sets a new lap record in Australia by .1 ms we can just assume exponential improvements and surely Ferrari will be lapping the rest of the field by the summer right?
Re: 2025: The Year in LLMs
#254Indeed. I don't understand why Hacker News is so dismissive about the coming of LLMs, maybe HN readers are going through 5 stages of grief? But LLM is certainly a game changer, I can see it delivering impact bigger than the internet itself. Both require a lot of investments.
> I don't understand why Hacker News is so dismissive about the coming of LLMs. Eh. I wouldn’t be so quick to speak for the entirety of HN. Several articles related to LLMs easily hit the front page every single day, so clearly there are plenty of HN users upvoting them. I think you're just reading too much into what is more likely classic HN cynicism and/or fatigue.
It's because both "side" tries to re-adjust.
When an "AI skeptic" sees a very positive AI comment, they try to argue that it is indeed interesting but nowhere near close to AI/AGI/ASI or whatever the hype at the moment uses.
When an "AI optimistic" sees a very negative AI comment, they try to list all the amazing things they have done that they were convinced was until then impossible.
Re: 2025: The Year in LLMs
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty neat how this exponential progress hasn't resulted in exponential productivity. Perhaps you could explain your perspective on that?
Because that requires adoption. Devs on hackernews are already the most up to date folks in the industry and even here adoption of LLMs is incredibly slow. And a lot of the adoption that does happen is still with older tech like ChatGPT or Cursor.
What’s the newer tech?
Re: 2025: The Year in LLMs
#256All these improvement in a single year, 2025. While this may seem obvious to those who follows along the AI / LLM news. It may be worth pointing out again ChatGPT was introduced to us in November 2022. I still dont believe AGI, ASI or Whatever AI will take over human in short period of time say 10 - 20 years. But it is hard to argue against the value of current AI, which many of the vocal critics on HN seems to have…
These are not all improvements. Listed:
* The year of YOLO and the Normalization of Deviance
* The year that Llama lost its way
* The year of alarmingly AI-enabled browsers
* The year of the lethal trifecta
* The year of slop
* The year that data centers got extremely unpopular
Re: 2025: The Year in LLMs
#257Indeed. I don't understand why Hacker News is so dismissive about the coming of LLMs, maybe HN readers are going through 5 stages of grief? But LLM is certainly a game changer, I can see it delivering impact bigger than the internet itself. Both require a lot of investments.
Based on quite a few comments recently, it also looks like many have tried LLMs in the past, but haven't seriously revisited either the modern or more expensive models. And I get it. Not everyone wants to keep up to date every month, or burn cash on experiments. But at the same time, people seem to have opinions formed in 2024. (Especially if they talk about just hallucinations and broken code - tell the agent to sea…
This has been the argument since day one. You just have to try the latest model, that's where you went wrong. For the record I use Claude Code quite a bit and I can't see much meaningful improvements from the last few models. It is a useful tool but it's shortcomings are very obvious.
Re: 2025: The Year in LLMs
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
The internet and smartphones were immediately useful in a million different ways for almost every person. AI is not even close to that level. Very to somewhat useful in some fields (like programming) but the average person will easily be able to go through their day without using AI. The most wide-appeal possibility is people loving 100%-AI-slop entertainment like that AI Instagram Reels product. Maybe I'm just too d…
ChatGPT has roughly 800 million weekly active users. Almost everyone around me uses it daily. I think you are underestimating the adoption.
How many pay? And out of that how many are willing to pay the amount to at least cover the inference costs (not loss leading?)
Outside the verifiable domains I think the impact is more assistance/augmentation than outright disruption (i.e. a novelty which is still nice). A little tiny bit of value sprinkled over a very large user base but each person deriving little value overall.
Even as they use it as search it is at best an incrementable improvement on what they used to do - not life changing.
Re: 2025: The Year in LLMs
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
> exponential progress First you need to define what it means. What's the metric? Otherwise it's very much something you can argue about.
> What's the metric? Language model capability at generating text output. The model progress this year has been a lot of: - “We added multimodal” - “We added a lot of non AI tooling” (ie agents) - “We put more compute into inference” (ie thinking mode) So yes, there is still rapid progress, but these ^ make it clear, at least to me, that next gen models are significantly harder to build. Simultaneously we see a disti…
> Language model capability at generating text output.
That's not a metric, that's a vague non-operationalized concept, that could be operationalized into an infinite number of different metrics. And an improvement that was linear in one of those possible metrics would be exponential in another one (well, actually, one that is was linear in one would also be linear in an infinite number of others, as well as being exponential in an infinite number of others.
That’s why you have to define an actual metric, not simply describe a vague concept of a kind of capacity of interest, before you can meaningfully discuss whether improvement is exponential. Because the answer is necessarily entirely dependent on the specific construction of the metric.
Re: 2025: The Year in LLMs
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
That must have been a long time back. Having lived through the time when web pages were served through CGI and mobile phones only existed in movies, when SVMs where the new hotness in ML and people would write about how weird NNs were, I feel like I've seen a lot more concrete progress in the last few decades than this year. This year honestly feels quite stagnant. LLMs are literally technology that can only reproduc…
> LLMs are literally technology that can only reproduce the past. Funny, I've used them to create my own personalized text editor, perfectly tailored to what I actually want. I'm pretty sure that didn't exist before. It's wild to me how many people who talk about LLM apparently haven't learned how to use them for even very basic tasks like this! No wonder you think they're not that powerful, if you don't even know ba…
Is your new text editor open source?