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

AI is different

antirez.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 920 posts

Re: AI is different

#331

Post by brap »

bambax wrote: post #324
btilly wrote: post #7

In every technology wave so far, we've disrupted many existing jobs. However we've also opened up new kinds of jobs. And, because it is easier to retrain humans than build machines for those jobs, we wound up with more and better jobs. This is the first technology wave that doesn't just displace humans, but which can be trained to the new job opportunities more easily than humans can. Right now it can't replace human…

One way to think about AI and jobs is Uber/Google Maps. You used to have to know a lot about a city to be a taxi driver; then suddenly with Google Maps you don't. So in effect, technology lowered the requirements or training needed to become a taxi driver. More people can do it, not less (although incumbents may be unhappy about this). AI is a lot like this. In coding for instance, you still need to have some sense o…

Even with Google Maps, we still need human drivers because current AI systems aren’t so great at driving and/or are too expensive to be widely adopted at this point. Once AI figures out driving too, what do we need the drivers for?

And I think that’s the point he was making, it’s hard to imagine any task where humans are still required when AI can do it better and cheaper. So I don’t think the Uber scenario is realistic.

I think the only value humans can provide in that future is “the human factor”: knowing that something is done by an actual human and not a machine can be valuable.

People want to watch humans playing chess, even though AI is better at it. They want to consume art made by humans. They want a human therapist or doctor, even if they heavily rely on AI for the technical stuff. We want the perspective of other humans even if they aren’t as smart as AI. We want someone that “gets” us, that experiences life the same way we do.

In the future, more jobs might revolve around that, and in industries where previously we didn’t even consider it. I think work is going to be mostly about engaging with each other (even more meetings!)

The problem is, in a world that is that increasingly remote, how do you actually know it’s a human on the other end? I think this is something we’ll need to solve, and it’s going to be hard with AI that’s able to imitate humans perfectly.

Re: AI is different

#333

Post by tfourb »

ACCount37 wrote: post #296
thephotonsphere wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla uses only cameras, which sounds crazy (reflections, direct sunlight disturbances, fog , smoke, etc. LiDAR, radar assistance feels crucial https://fortune.com/2025/08/15/waymo-srikanth-thirumalai-int...

Humans use only cameras. And humans don't even have true 360 coverage on those cameras. The bottleneck for self-driving technology isn't sensors - it's AI. Building a car that collects enough sensory data to enable self-driving is easy. Building a car AI that actually drives well in a diverse range of conditions is hard.

That's actually categorically false. We also use sophisticated hearing, a well developed sense of inertia and movement, air pressure, impact, etc. And we can swivel our heads to increase our coverage of vision to near 360°, while using very dependable and simple technology like mirrors to cover the rest. Add to that that our vision is inherently 3D and we sport a quite impressive sensor suite ;-). My guess is that the fidelity and range of the sensors on a Tesla can't hold a candle to the average human driver. No idea how LIDAR changes this picture, but it sure is better than vision only.

I think there is a good chance that what we currently call "AI" is fundamentally not technologically capable of human levels of driving in diverse conditions. It can support and it can take responsibility in certain controlled (or very well known) environments, but we'll need fundamentally new technology to make the jump.

Re: AI is different

#334

Post by dsign »

mycentstoo wrote: post #266

I am just not having this experience of AI being terribly useful. I don’t program as much in my role but I’ve found it’s a giant time sink. I recognize that many people are finding it incredibly helpful but when I get deeper into a particular issue or topic, it falls very flat.

The argument goes like this:

- Today, AI is not incredibly useful and we are not 100% sure that it will improve forever, specially in a way that makes economic sense, but

- Investors are pouring lots of money into it. One should not assume that those investors are not making their due diligence. They are. The figures they have obtained from experts mean that AI is expected to continue improving in the short and medium term.

- Investors are not counting on people using AI to go to Mars. They are betting on AI replacing labor. The slice of the pie that is currently captured by labor, will be captured by capital instead. That's why they are pouring the money with such enthusiasm [^1].

The above is nothing new; it has been constantly happening since the Industrial Revolution. What is new is that AI has the potential to replace all of the remaining economic worth of humans, effectively leaving them out of the economy. Humans can still opt to "forcefully" participate in the economy or its rewards; though it's unclear if we will manage. In terms of pure economic incentives though, humans are destined to become redundant.

[^1]: That doesn't mean all the jobs will go away overnight, or that there won't be new jobs in the short and medium term.

Re: AI is different

#335

Post by ben_w »

listenallyall wrote: post #283
mcny wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You’re talking about 3-5 trillion dollars per year just for the USA I just want to point out that's about a fifth of our GDP and we spend about this much for healthcare in the US. We badly need a way to reduce this to at least half. > There is a reason we all pay for our own food and housing. The main reason I support UBI is I don't want need based or need aware distribution. I want everyone to get benefits equally…

> I support UBI Honestly, what type of housing do you envision under a UBI system? Houses? Modern apartment buildings? College dormitory-like buildings? Soviet-style complexes? Prison-style accommodations? B stands for basic, how basic?

(Not the person you're replying to)

I think a UBI system is only stable in conjunction with sufficient automation that work itself becomes redundant. Before that point, I don't think UBI can genuinely be sustained; and IMO even very close to that point the best I expect we will see, if we're lucky, is the state pension age going down. (That it's going up in many places suggests that many governments do not expect this level of automation any time soon).

Therefore, in all seriousness, I would anticipate a real UBI system to provide whatever housing you want, up to and including things that are currently unaffordable even to billionaires, e.g. 1:1 scale replicas of any of the ships called Enterprise including both aircraft carriers and also the fictional spaceships.

That said, I am a proponent of direct state involvement in the housing market, e.g. the UK council housing system as it used to be (but not as it now is, there're not building enough):

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_K...

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_house

Re: AI is different

#336

Post by LightBug1 »

btilly wrote: post #7

In every technology wave so far, we've disrupted many existing jobs. However we've also opened up new kinds of jobs. And, because it is easier to retrain humans than build machines for those jobs, we wound up with more and better jobs. This is the first technology wave that doesn't just displace humans, but which can be trained to the new job opportunities more easily than humans can. Right now it can't replace human…

As someone else said, until a company or individual is willing to risk their reputation on the accuracy of AI (beyond basic summarising jobs, etc), the intelligent monkeys are here for a good while longer. I've already been once bitten, twice shy.

The conclusion, sadly, is that CEO's will pause hiring and squeeze more productivity out of existing hires. This will impact junior roles the most.

Re: AI is different

#337

Post by andrepd »

sneak wrote: post #289
motorest wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can’t provide valuable things for “free” en masse without institutionalizing either slavery or robbery. The value must come from somewhere. Utter nonsense. Do you believe the European countries that provides higher education for free are manning tenure positions with slaves or robbing people at gunpoint? How come do you see public transportation services in some major urban centers being provided free of charge…

> Are countries with access to free health care using slavery to keep hospitals and clinics running? No, robbery. They’re paid for with tax revenues, which are collected without consent. Taking of someone’s money without consent has a name. Have you ever stopped to consider why class mobility is much much less common in Europe than in the USA?

>Have you ever stopped to consider why class mobility is much much less common in Europe than in the USA?

This is not true, it was true historically, but not since WWII. Read Piketty.

Re: AI is different

#338

Post by amanaplanacanal »

callc wrote: post #101
atleastoptimal wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI has already rendered academic take-home assignments moot. No other tech has had an impact like that, even the internet.

A pessimistic/realistic view of post high school education - credentials are proof of able to do a certain amount of hard work, used as an easy filter for companies while hiring. I expect universities to adapt quickly, lest lose their whole business as degrees will not carry the same meaning to employers.

Maybe universities can go back to being temples of learning instead of credential mills.

I can dream, can't I?

Re: AI is different

#339

Post by andrepd »

juniperus wrote: post #298
motorest wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have you ever stopped to consider why class mobility is much much less common in Europe than in the USA? Which class mobility is this that you speak of? The one that forces the average US citizens to be a paycheck away from homelessness? Or is it the one where you are a medical emergency away from filing bankruptcy? Have you stopped to wonder how some European countries report higher median household incomes than t…

the economic situation in Europe is much more dire than the US...

Yet people live better. Goes to show you shouldn't optimise for crude, raw GDP as an end in itself, only as a means for your true end: health, quality of life, freedom, etc.

Re: AI is different

#340

Post by polotics »

ludicrousdispla wrote: post #239
andrei_says_ wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure how exactly politicians will jump from “minimal wages don’t have to be livable wages” and “people who are able to work should absolutely not have access to free healthcare” and “any tax-supported benefits are actually undeserved entitlements and should be eliminated” to “everyone deserves a universal basic income”.

Politicians are elected for limited terms, not for life, so they don't need to change their opinion for a change to occur.

Are you sure of this? Don't you think the next US presidential election and very many subsequent ones will be decided by the US Supreme Court?
Post reply on HN