Live data from Hacker News

Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden

andyljones.com

281–290 of 663 posts

Re: Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden

#281
post #256
post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently human chess grandmasters also need “oversight” from airplanes, because without those, essentially none of them would show up at elite tournaments.

Things like trains, boats, and cars exist. Human chess grandmasters can show up to elite tournaments, and perform while there, without airplanes. Computer chess systems, on the other hand, cannot do anything without human oversight.

Yes, a computer chess system replacing a thousand chess players requires a couple of developers for the oversight.

Re: Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden

#282
post #18

Cost per word is a bizarre metric to bring up. Since when is volume of words a measure of value or achievement?

It's not merely cost per word, but it is even more bizarre: "cost per word thought", whatever that is. Most of these "word thoughts" from LLMs of today are just auto-completed large dumps of text.

Re: Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden

#284
post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things like trains, boats, and cars exist. Human chess grandmasters can show up to elite tournaments, and perform while there, without airplanes. Computer chess systems, on the other hand, cannot do anything without human oversight.

Yes, a computer chess system replacing a thousand chess players requires a couple of developers for the oversight.

Computer chess systems don't need developer oversight. They do, however, require oversight from, let's call them, IT people.

Re: Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden

#285

Horses 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…

Funny the original post doesn’t mention AI replacing the coding part of his job. There seems to be a running theme of “okay but what about” in every discussion that involves AI replacing jobs. Meanwhile a little time goes by and “poof” AI is handling it. I want to be be optimistic. But it’s hard to ignore what I’m doing and seeing. As far as I can tell, we haven’t hit serious unemployment yet because of momentum and…

I predict by March 2026, AI will be better at writing doomer articles about humans being replaced than top human experts.

Re: Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden

#286

Horses 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…

Funny the original post doesn’t mention AI replacing the coding part of his job. There seems to be a running theme of “okay but what about” in every discussion that involves AI replacing jobs. Meanwhile a little time goes by and “poof” AI is handling it. I want to be be optimistic. But it’s hard to ignore what I’m doing and seeing. As far as I can tell, we haven’t hit serious unemployment yet because of momentum and…

I’m deeply sceptical. Every time a major announcement comes out saying so-and-so model is now a triple Ph.D programming triathlon winner, I try using it. Every time it’s the same - super fast code generation, until suddenly staggering hallucinations.

If anything the quality has gotten worse, because the models are now so good at lying when they don’t know it’s really hard to review. Is this a safe way to make that syscall? Is the lock structuring here really deadlock safe? The model will tell you with complete confidence its code is perfect, and it’ll either be right or lying, it never says “I don’t know”.

Every time OpenAI or Anthropic or Google announce a “stratospheric leap forward” and I go back and try and find it’s the same, I become more convinced that the lying is structural somehow, that the architecture they have is not fundamentally able to capture “I need to solve the problem I’m being asked to solve” instead of “I need to produce tokens that are likely to come after these other tokens”.

The tool is incredible, I use it constantly, but only for things where truth is irrelevant, or where I can easily verify the answer. So far I have found programming, other than trivial tasks and greenfield ”write some code that does x”, much faster without LLMs

Re: Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden

#287

Horses 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…

> most companies will still have more work to do than resources to assign to those tasks

This is very important yet rarely talked about. Having worked in a well-run group on a very successful product I could see that no matter how many people would be on a project there was alway too much work. And always too many projects. I am no longer with the company but I can see some of the ideas talked about back then being launched now, many years later. For a complex product there is always more to do and AI would simply accelerate development.

Re: Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden

#288
post #279
post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There seems to be a running theme of “okay but what about” in every discussion that involves AI replacing jobs. Meanwhile a little time goes by and “poof” AI is handling it. Any sources on that? Except for some big tech companies I dont see that happening at all. While not empirical most devs I know try to avoid it like the plague. I cant imagine that many devs actually jumped on the hype train to replace themselve…

This is what I also see. AI is used sparingly. Mostly for information lookup and autocomplete. It's just not good enough for other things. I could use it to write code if I really babysit it and triple check everything it does? Cool cool, maybe sometime later.

Who does typical code sweat shops churning out one smallish app at a time and quickly moving on? Certainly not your typical company-hired permanent dev, they (us) drown in tons of complex legacy code that keeps working for past 10-20 years and company sees no reason to throw it away.

Those folks that do churn out such apps, for them its great & horrible long term. For folks like me development is maybe 10% of my work, and by far the best part - creative, problem-solving, stimulating, actually learning myself. Why would I want to mildly optimize that 10% and loose all the good stuff, while speed wouldn't visibly even improve?

To really improve speed in bigger orgs, the change would have to happen in processes, office politics, management priorities and so on. No help of llms there, if anything trend-chasing managers just introduce more chaos with negative consequences.

Re: Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden

#289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very insightful take. People forget that there is competition between corporations and nations that drives an arms race. The humans at risk of job displacement are the ones who lack the skill and experience to oversee the robots. But if one company/nation has a workforce that is effectively 1000x, then the next company/nation needs to compete. The companies/countries that retire their humans and try to auto…

I think you’ve missed the point. Cars replaced horses - it wasn’t cars+horses that won. Computers replaced humans as the best chess players, not computers with human oversight. If successful, the end state is full automation because it’s strictly superhuman and scales way more easily.

> Computers replaced humans as the best chess players

Computers can't play chess.

Re: Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden

#290
post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’ve missed the point. Cars replaced horses - it wasn’t cars+horses that won. Computers replaced humans as the best chess players, not computers with human oversight. If successful, the end state is full automation because it’s strictly superhuman and scales way more easily.

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)

I am somewhat confident that horses are going to replace cars and tractors pretty soon, possibly within my lifetime and quite likely with my son's.

He's going to learn how to drive (and repair) a tractor but he's also going to learn how to ride a horse.

Post reply on HN