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

After the AI boom: what might we be left with?

blog.robbowley.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 489 posts

Re: After the AI boom: what might we be left with?

#271

Post by CuriouslyC »

pooyan2 wrote: post #251
jayd16 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well we could still vote out the corrupt and actually invest in US infrastructure but I guess that's crazier than hanging all our hopes on AI serfdom.

I live in the U.S. and would like to support our businesses, however the U.S. is neither the leader in semiconductor/electronics manufacturing nor in power production and availability, and without those, they will not end up being the world leader in AI- China will.

This is basically my take as well. Even if we sprint ahead at first, it's not going to be the magical superpower we think it will be, and their systemic advantage will win over the long horizon.

Re: After the AI boom: what might we be left with?

#272

Post by nebula8804 »

ares623 wrote: post #244
CuriouslyC wrote: post #84

This is where we're headed: https://sibylline.dev/articles/2025-10-12-ai-is-too-big-to-f...

This is assuming 300M people will take it willingly. Though to be honest with Trump at the helm they're already ~50% there.

>Though to be honest with Trump at the helm they're already ~50% there.

Those people have never felt real pain. They may say they have but they haven't. If this article is real and the whole shitbox falls apart, I don't think even loyalty to Trump will stop these people from finally reckoning with reality.

Re: After the AI boom: what might we be left with?

#273

Post by jcranmer »

tim333 wrote: post #246
KPGv2 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they didnt have the compute or the data to make use of NNs The compute and data are both limitations of NNs. We've already gotten really close to the data limit (we aren't generating enough useful content as a species and the existing stuff has all been slurped up). Standard laws of physics restrict the compute side, just like how we know we will hit it with CPUs. Eventually, you just cannot put things closer toget…

We have evidence that general intelligence can be produced but a bunch of biological neurons in the brain and modern computers can process similar amounts of data to those so it's a matter of figuring how to wire it up as it were.

Despite being their namesake, biological neurons operate quite distinctly from neural nets. I believe we have yet to successfully model the nervous system of the nematodes, with a paltry 302 neurons.

Re: After the AI boom: what might we be left with?

#274

Post by akomtu »

gizmo686 wrote: post #41
arisAlexis wrote: post #2

The singularity. I don't think most authors of articles like these understand what the AI build up is about, they think it's another fad tool.

We've had AI booms before. In terms of capabilities, this one is following exactly the same trajectory. Human researchers come up with some sort of breakthrough improvement to AI methods, that results in exponential like growth of capability as we both solve the low hanging fruit the method offers at it, and scale up the compute and data available to the limits of what is useful for the method. Then, capabilities sta…

IMO, a big reason for this stagnation is that many researchers who could push the AI further choose not to because they came to believe that AI will do no good for humanity. It would be odd to have intellect strong enough to advance AI and at the same time somehow to not see the consequences of such 'progress'.

Re: After the AI boom: what might we be left with?

#275

Post by kulahan »

zerof1l wrote: post #181
CuriouslyC wrote: post #84

This is where we're headed: https://sibylline.dev/articles/2025-10-12-ai-is-too-big-to-f...

Very US-centric article. Written by insecure people who are clinging to power and money desperately. I don't see how some kind of big breakthrough is going to happen with the current model designs. The superintelligence, if it will ever be created, will require a new breakthrough in model architecture. We've pretty much hit the limit of what is possible with current LLMs. The improvements are marginal at this point.…

So often, I see comments that seem to make sense only in a vacuum. If the US disappeared from the scene tomorrow, how do you think the geopolitical landscape might change?

The competition between the US and China is pertinent to everyone.

Re: After the AI boom: what might we be left with?

#276

Post by jay_kyburz »

joshuahedlund wrote: post #149
harvey9 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can run quite useful models on my PC. Might not change the world but I got a usable transcript of an old foreign language TV show and then machine translated to English. It is not as good as professional subtitles but i wasn't willing to pay the cost of that option.

Won’t those models gradually become outdated (for anything related to events that happen after the model was trained, new code languages or framework versions, etc) if no one is around to continually re-train them?

They should be fine for things that don't change. (which is a lot of stuff)

If you are feeding the LLM a report, and asking it for a summary, it doesn't need the latest updates from Wikipedia or Reddit.

Re: After the AI boom: what might we be left with?

#277

Post by CuriouslyC »

nebula8804 wrote: post #272
ares623 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is assuming 300M people will take it willingly. Though to be honest with Trump at the helm they're already ~50% there.

>Though to be honest with Trump at the helm they're already ~50% there. Those people have never felt real pain. They may say they have but they haven't. If this article is real and the whole shitbox falls apart, I don't think even loyalty to Trump will stop these people from finally reckoning with reality.

Honestly I've never wanted to be more wrong in my life. There were so many moments when I was doing research and analysis for this article that I said to myself: "We're so fucked"

Re: After the AI boom: what might we be left with?

#278

Post by jay_kyburz »

jayd16 wrote: post #202
logicchains wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not running at a loss. Training runs at a loss, but the models are profitable to serve if you don't need to continuously train new models.

But you do or you're missing current events, right?

I'm trying to avoid getting into the habit of asking LLMs about current events, or really any events. Or really facts at all.

I think LLMs work best when you give it data, and ask it to try make sense of it, or find something interesting, or some problem. To see something I can't see, then I can go back and go back to the original data and make sure its true.

Re: After the AI boom: what might we be left with?

#279

Post by ares623 »

nebula8804 wrote: post #272
ares623 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is assuming 300M people will take it willingly. Though to be honest with Trump at the helm they're already ~50% there.

>Though to be honest with Trump at the helm they're already ~50% there. Those people have never felt real pain. They may say they have but they haven't. If this article is real and the whole shitbox falls apart, I don't think even loyalty to Trump will stop these people from finally reckoning with reality.

As someone who grew up in a very religious country (not the US), Trumps followers will endure any suffering if it means being in service to him (or if it means their enemies will suffer more, or is portrayed to be suffering more).

Re: After the AI boom: what might we be left with?

#280

Post by jay_kyburz »

mikert89 wrote: post #131
dotnet00 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've done nothing but reuse the Sam Altman/Elon Musk playbook of making wild and extremely vague statements. Maybe say something concrete? What's a positive real world impact of LLMs where they aren't hideously expensive and error prone to the point of near uselessness? Something that isn't just the equivalent of a crypto-bro saying that their system for semi-regulated speculation (totally not a rugpull!) will end…

they speak in generalities because the models are profoundly general, a general learning system. below someone asked me to list the capabilities, its the wrong question to ask. its like asking what a baby can do

Babies are hopeless. They can't do anything.

Oh, I guess you mean when they grow up.

Post reply on HN