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

AI (2014)

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 72 posts

Re: AI (2014)

#31

Post by __s »

embedding-shape wrote: post #17
lebek wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then human work is changed to figuring out new things and the AI solves all old things, that seems much more fun than most white collar work today. But it's not fun to be figuring out new things all the time. Some amount of routine work is necessary to 1) exercise mastery (feels good), and 2) recover energy. This is why a lot of people find agentic coding exhausting and less fun, you're basically always having to b…

> you're basically always having to be creative (what's the next feature?) or solve the hardest 5% of issues the LLM can't handle. Maybe I'm wired differently, but this is fun to me, and "exercising mastery" by doing routine work is almost never fun, things stop being fun and feel good once I've "mastered" them, and I can't say I've ever "recovered energy" by doing routine work, it seems to suck energy out of me fast…

For me a bit of grunt work to start the day is like morning strechs

Re: AI (2014)

#32

Post by embedding-shape »

__s wrote: post #31
embedding-shape wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you're basically always having to be creative (what's the next feature?) or solve the hardest 5% of issues the LLM can't handle. Maybe I'm wired differently, but this is fun to me, and "exercising mastery" by doing routine work is almost never fun, things stop being fun and feel good once I've "mastered" them, and I can't say I've ever "recovered energy" by doing routine work, it seems to suck energy out of me fast…

For me a bit of grunt work to start the day is like morning strechs

Forcing myself to do something like that would be a great way to ruin my day ;)

Re: AI (2014)

#33

Post by virgildotcodes »

elevatortrim wrote: post #16
jryio wrote: post #3

> The most positive outcome I can think of is one where computers get really good at doing, and humans get really good at thinking. If we never figure out how to make computers creative, then there will be a very natural division of labor between man and machine. Man will do nothing and machine will do everything. That's a bleak world no one is preparing for. How is that universal basic income scheme coming along?

That world is not necessarily bleak. We currently have two broad mechanisms to equate people's value. *Employees:* Easy to replace = Low Salary = Gets Few Resources Hard to replace = High Salary = Gets Many Resources *Entrepreneurs:* Output consumed low = Low Pay = Gets Few Resources Output consumed high = High Pay = Gets Many Resources (Resource consumption ignored) In a world where machines do everything, aspects o…

I don't see how this doesn't equally apply to the pre-AI economy. The results there have been quite stark, with the "entrepreneurs" ending up far better off than the "employees".

Re: AI (2014)

#34

Post by kolinko »

DeathArrow wrote: post #27

In a sane world AI revolution would be driven by the likes of Andrew Ng, Andrej Karpathy, Yann LeCun and not by a brigade of Sam Altmans.

As someone who spent most of my time with computer scientists - the last thing I’d like would be for them to run the world.

Re: AI (2014)

#35

Post by aleph_minus_one »

jack_pp wrote: post #30
gjadi wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“The doers are the major thinkers. The people that really create the things that change this industry are both the thinker and doer in one person.” Steve Jobs Now, what are doers in the age of LLM is another question.

Well was Jobs a "doer"? Did he get his hands dirty on the code? Or did he use his employees how we would like to use LLMs?

> Well was Jobs a "doer"?

Jobs' talent was that he was an incredibly talented salesman.

Re: AI (2014)

#36

Post by mmustapic »

cheschire wrote: post #29
oytis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an expression of class thinking from the beginning IMO. People think of themselves as thinkers and creators, while those who do labour they rely on without getting too much into details are merely doers and can ideally be replaced. But it's really thinking and creativity all the way down if you try to learn to do things well

You must have had limited exposure to uncreative types. You might be shocked to find there are people that can do nothing more than follow checklists. Sometimes it's a lack of capacity for novel thinking. Sometimes it's fear caused by past trauma. Or it can be age. Or an inability to overcome habits. The list goes on, but the point is that I've had to work with or supervise employees (even in IT!) that didn't have a…

You are only thinking about people and creativity in the workplace. Creativity can be applied anywhere: cooking, a new route on your way to somewhere, read some random paragraphs in a book that spawns new thoughts, a new game with a child, optimize the way you paint the walls on your house, choose the plants in your garden (and how you'll water them), do a doodle, try or buy a new outfit, typing this paragraph in response to your message (kinda LLM-y maybe).

Re: AI (2014)

#37

Post by dgxyz »

Jensson wrote: post #4

> And maybe we don't want to build machines that are concious in this sense. The most positive outcome I can think of is one where computers get really good at doing, and humans get really good at thinking. If we never figure out how to make computers creative, then there will be a very natural division of labor between man and machine. This is where LLM is currently going. Not really AGI since they can't think like…

I don't think that's where it's going.

LLMs are shit at doing stuff to anyone who is a domain expert in the thing that they are supposed to be doing. They are trained on a huge corpus of average stuff. They produce average to crappy solutions quickly. The technology industry bubble is trained to accept that as good enough which is why everyone is excited. Elsewhere it's a complete and utter joke.

And on top of that, a huge chunk of doing requires humans to physically do something or absolute determinism is better anyway, neither of which an LLM is capable of.

None of it makes sense.

Edit: actually the technology industry moves the goalposts to match the claims. That is the dishonest bit. I've not seen any evidence of novel capability which isn't corrupted by some dishonest measurement approach.

Re: AI (2014)

#38

Post by aleph_minus_one »

Jensson wrote: post #15
oytis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an expression of class thinking from the beginning IMO. People think of themselves as thinkers and creators, while those who do labour they rely on without getting too much into details are merely doers and can ideally be replaced. But it's really thinking and creativity all the way down if you try to learn to do things well

> But it's really thinking and creativity all the way down if you try to learn to do things well Yes, everyone starts out creative. But we all can tell the difference between a worker that is still creative and learning and a worker that gave up creativity and is just doing his job. The first will still be useful in this AI age the second will be replaced by AI learning what he already knows.

> But we all can tell the difference between a worker that is still creative and learning and a worker that gave up creativity and is just doing his job. The first will still be useful in this AI age the second will be replaced by AI learning what he already knows.

Rather: the workers who are (still) creative are typically a huge annoyance to their bosses.

Re: AI (2014)

#39

Post by Devasta »

jryio wrote: post #3

> The most positive outcome I can think of is one where computers get really good at doing, and humans get really good at thinking. If we never figure out how to make computers creative, then there will be a very natural division of labor between man and machine. Man will do nothing and machine will do everything. That's a bleak world no one is preparing for. How is that universal basic income scheme coming along?

> How is that universal basic income scheme coming along?

If the Epstein class won't allow for everyone to have a reasonable standard of living when they relied on workers to produce, the chances of them allowing it when they don't is next to nil. They couldn't even bear the thought of people working from home, for no other reason than the workers liked it, and that cost them nothing.

Re: AI (2014)

#40

Post by philipallstar »

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #35
jack_pp wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well was Jobs a "doer"? Did he get his hands dirty on the code? Or did he use his employees how we would like to use LLMs?

> Well was Jobs a "doer"? Jobs' talent was that he was an incredibly talented salesman.

That wasn't too hard for him given he was also an incredibly talented market opportunity spotter and product leader.
Post reply on HN