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

Will AI be the basis of many future industrial fortunes, or a net loser?

joincolossus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 377 posts

Re: Will AI be the basis of many future industrial fortunes, or a net loser?

#351

Post by awesome_dude »

habinero wrote: post #350
awesome_dude wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've been wrong about everything else, so why stop there. The models we have are very coarse, and work for 24 hours (kind of, there are still extreme events that are difficult to be accurate about) More sensors are being deployed this very second - which will present a finer grained picture. It's not even at the rocket science part yet

No. They are, again, correct. A chaotic system in physics means "a tiny difference in initial conditions leads to large differences in outcome". You cannot measure precisely enough to make a chaotic system predictable, even if the system is entirely deterministic and you understand all the physics involved. It doesn't matter how many decimal places of accuracy you have or how many sensors there are, the error in the…

Pile on all you like, but your gross misunderstanding isn't changing the facts.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, we have systems now that are accurate for 24 hours into the future, generally accurate for 72 hours, and mostly accurate for 120 hours

That's not "impossible because of chaos", that's "actually happening right now"

You're saying it cannot get any better, I'm saying it can

That's how wrong you are.

Re: Will AI be the basis of many future industrial fortunes, or a net loser?

#352

Post by ACCount37 »

awesome_dude wrote: post #329
ACCount37 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chaos theory. Look. It. Up. Avalanche effect COMPLETELY PREVENTS certain things from being predictable.

So, you can yell and scream all you like but everything, and I mean literally everything that we know was once "unknowable" "impossible" "complete chaos" "unpredictable" There is only one thing that a person can never know, and that is the limit of their ignorance and incompetence.

There are, in fact, things that are "unpredictable" and "complete chaos". You'd know that by now if you weren't so allergic to rectifying your own ignorance.

Re: Will AI be the basis of many future industrial fortunes, or a net loser?

#353

Post by pixl97 »

_DeadFred_ wrote: post #301
pixl97 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>is actually a net positive result for those disciplines. This is an argument based in Luddism. Looms where not a net positive for the craftsman that were making fabrics at the time. With that said, looms where not the killing blow, instead an economic system that lead them to starve in the streets was. There are going to be a million other things that move the economics away from scarcity and take away the profitabi…

Yes, being against a society without artists is totally a luddite argument. Being against AI entropy stopping societal progress, stagnating culture at 2025 when humans started stopping contributing to the training set is a luddite argument. Please stop, you are not responding in good faith. Saying 'I think society should have artists' is not Luddism.

Eh, you say I'm not responding in good faith, and yet that's exactly what I'd accuse you of doing.

For example take this line of mine

>The question is, are we going to hold on to economic systems that don't work under that regime

Currently artistry requires artists get paid somehow in our current system. That means instead of making the art they want, they have to make art that's economically useful to a paying customer. And yet for some reason you don't consider that part of a stagnating culture.

Re: Will AI be the basis of many future industrial fortunes, or a net loser?

#354

Post by Tepix »

JimDabell wrote: post #130
Tepix wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We also know from studies that it makes us less capable, i.e. it rots our brains.

This is what the people actually studying this say: > Is it safe to say that LLMs are, in essence, making us "dumber"? > No! Please do not use the words like “stupid”, “dumb”, “brain rot”, "harm", "damage", "passivity", "trimming" and so on. It does a huge disservice to this work, as we did not use this vocabulary in the paper, especially if you are a journalist reporting on it. — https://www.brainonllm.com/faq

That's not the only study that concluded that your cognitive abilities decline when using LLMs. There have been at least eight. Here are two:

"The impact of digital technology, social media, and artificial intelligence on cognitive functions: a review" (2023)

Result:

AI/digital overuse causes "digital dementia" with impairments in memory, attention, and decision-making; multitasking and offloading reduce gray matter in key brain areas, worsening sustained focus and analytical abilities.

"From tools to threats: a reflection on the impact of artificial-intelligence chatbots on cognitive health" (2024)

Result:

Excessive AIC reliance parallels "use it or lose it" brain principles, leading to underutilization and cognitive atrophy; interactive chatbots deepen dependency, risking long-term decline in core skills like memory and problem-solving.

Re: Will AI be the basis of many future industrial fortunes, or a net loser?

#355

Post by SquibblesRedux »

unleaded wrote: post #233

Something that's confused/annoyed me about the AI boom is that it's like we've learned to run before we learned to walk. For example, there are countless websites where you can generate a sophisticated, photorealistic image of anything you like, but there is no tool I know of that you can ask "give me a 16x16 PNG icon of an apple" and get exactly that. I know why —Neural networks excel at fixed size, organic data, bu…

I just asked ChatGPT-5 to "give me a 16x16 PNG icon of an apple" and it did exactly that. It looks good, too.

Not that I don't recognize the inherent limits of LLMs, but there are as many edge cases covered as are found in the training sets. (More or less.)

Re: Will AI be the basis of many future industrial fortunes, or a net loser?

#356

Post by JimDabell »

Tepix wrote: post #354
JimDabell wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what the people actually studying this say: > Is it safe to say that LLMs are, in essence, making us "dumber"? > No! Please do not use the words like “stupid”, “dumb”, “brain rot”, "harm", "damage", "passivity", "trimming" and so on. It does a huge disservice to this work, as we did not use this vocabulary in the paper, especially if you are a journalist reporting on it. — https://www.brainonllm.com/faq

That's not the only study that concluded that your cognitive abilities decline when using LLMs. There have been at least eight. Here are two: "The impact of digital technology, social media, and artificial intelligence on cognitive functions: a review" (2023) Result: AI/digital overuse causes "digital dementia" with impairments in memory, attention, and decision-making; multitasking and offloading reduce gray matter…

> AI/digital overuse causes "digital dementia" with impairments in memory, attention, and decision-making; multitasking and offloading reduce gray matter in key brain areas, worsening sustained focus and analytical abilities.

This seems like a very dishonest misrepresentation. I guess that’s why you didn’t link to your sources, in the hope people would take your word for it?

> "The impact of digital technology, social media, and artificial intelligence on cognitive functions: a review" (2023)

Here’s the link: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cognition/articles/10.3...

I took a look at what you cite as:

> AI/digital overuse causes "digital dementia"

It starts out:

> Digital dementia is a term used to describe the decline in cognitive abilities caused by excessive use of digital technology

It talks a lot about this, and has a lot of citations. All but one of them are pre-AI boom. This is the one that isn’t:

> Overview on brain function enhancement of Internet addicts through exercise intervention: Based on reward-execution-decision cycle

— https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36816421/

It has nothing whatsoever to do with AI.

The part of the review that talks about AI does actually mention dementia:

> Notably, there are AI technologies being developed to detect early signs of dementia through speech and language patterns analyzing short snippets of speech to predict and monitor cognitive decline (Kwak et al., 2021)

It also says things like this:

> AI also has profound implications for learning processes. Adaptive learning platforms like Carnegie Learning provide personalized learning experiences tailored to individual needs, which can enhance learning outcomes

This is not the “AI rots our brains” proof you make it out to be.

Re: Will AI be the basis of many future industrial fortunes, or a net loser?

#357

Post by _DeadFred_ »

psolidgold wrote: post #321
_DeadFred_ wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Art without intention isn't art. The entire point of art is the human intention by it. The pattern on linoleum isn't art. The beautiful wood grain in my table isn't art. And shitty AI images/music aren't art.

The human intention doesn't disappear just because the execution involves algorithms instead of paintbrushes - digital or otherwise.

It very much does. When I commission a piece of art, I am not the artist. Art without intention, without an artist, is not art.

Re: Will AI be the basis of many future industrial fortunes, or a net loser?

#358

Post by _DeadFred_ »

fulafel wrote: post #340
_DeadFred_ wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Initially the printing press resulted in LESS writers, because people just copies others works. In fact, they had to establish something called intellectual property law in order to encourage people to write again.

It was the other way around. See eg https://www.maximum-progress.com/p/the-printing-press-nfts-a... - "In 1843 alone 14,000 new works were published in Germany, close to the publication rate today in per capita terms." .. "Publishers knew that once a manuscript was out in public it could be cheaply copied by other printing press owners, so instead they sought out new manuscripts in pursuit of a first mover advantage…

That's 140 years after the point I made?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne

Re: Will AI be the basis of many future industrial fortunes, or a net loser?

#359

Post by visarga »

okamiueru wrote: post #140
visarga wrote: post #111

AI is used by students, teachers, researchers, software developers, marketers and other categories and the adoption rates are close to 90%. Even if it does not make us more productive we still like using it daily. But when used right, it does make us slightly more productive and I think it justifies its cost. So yes, in the long run it will be viable, we both like using it and it helps us work better. But I think the…

I think that AI is a benefit for about 1% of what people think it is good for. The remaining 99% had become a significant challenge to the greatest human achievement in distribution of knowledge. If people used LLMs, knowing that all output is statistical garbage made to seem plausible (i.e. "hallusinations"), and that it just sometimes overlaps with reality, it would be a lot less dangerous. There is not a single ca…

> knowing that all output is statistical garbage

"Bare" LLMs are rare today. Almost all of them are hooked to search engines, APIs, and code execution. So "closed book" fact retention is not an issue, we're not even trying to do that anymore.

Re: Will AI be the basis of many future industrial fortunes, or a net loser?

#360

Post by unleaded »

SquibblesRedux wrote: post #355
unleaded wrote: post #233

Something that's confused/annoyed me about the AI boom is that it's like we've learned to run before we learned to walk. For example, there are countless websites where you can generate a sophisticated, photorealistic image of anything you like, but there is no tool I know of that you can ask "give me a 16x16 PNG icon of an apple" and get exactly that. I know why —Neural networks excel at fixed size, organic data, bu…

I just asked ChatGPT-5 to "give me a 16x16 PNG icon of an apple" and it did exactly that. It looks good, too. Not that I don't recognize the inherent limits of LLMs, but there are as many edge cases covered as are found in the training sets. (More or less.)

well i just asked it the same thing and it gave me a 1MB 1024x1024 png with fringed edges & sensor noise that measures out to a 17x21 pixel image. https://files.catbox.moe/1q4jtp.png

In the time it would take to keep retrying until it makes one that fits, then reshaping it to fit into 16x16 nicely I could have just drawn one myself.

Post reply on HN