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

I am against GenAI and everything it stands for

lpcvoid.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 51 posts

Re: I am against GenAI and everything it stands for

#41

Post by cpldcpu »

xigoi wrote: post #36
impulser_ wrote: post #11

"If all of this was done to better humanity, AI development would be done in public, data would be legally obtained, models would be released for free, access wouldn't be gatekept behind ever increasing subscription costs." The vast majority of AI development is public. There are papers literally every single day to read. In fact everything you need to build Claude and GPT models is public. Thanks to Google, DeepSeek…

Is there any mainstream model that is actually open-source (not just open-weight)?

What do you mean with "open-source"? Of course, the inference code for all the open weight models is publically available - see llama.cpp or hf transformers.

There are, however, very few models where also the full training pipeline is available. Olmo by AI2 comes to mind.

Re: I am against GenAI and everything it stands for

#42

Post by atleastoptimal »

thefz wrote: post #35
atleastoptimal wrote: post #2

> I am going to state a bet: In 5 to 10 years, once all the vibe coders get hooked into LLMs, there's going to be so much unmaintainable, wrongly architectured crap code in every codebase they touch, that by then they are unable to get any work done without consulting their LLM. And if that heap of collected technical debt becomes so large that even the LLM fails In 5-10 years AI is going to be so much better than ev…

> In 5-10 years AI is going to be so much better than even the best human coder How, if it learns from humans?

How did alphago become better than any human Go player?

Re: I am against GenAI and everything it stands for

#43

Post by moomoo11 »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #15
moomoo11 wrote: post #3

2005: "Why would I run my workloads in the cloud? I have 400 certifications!"

There is still, to this very day, not a good reason for most businesses to run their workloads in the cloud (startups being a notable exception). So, your argument isn't as compelling as you think.

we’re on hacker news

those types of businesses are probably old and legacy and unless they’re finance or healthcare i don’t really care for them if i’m honest

Re: I am against GenAI and everything it stands for

#44

Post by kelseyfrog »

supern0va wrote: post #21
kelseyfrog wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Programming requires thinking and LLMs can't think. Therefore LLMs cannot be better than humans at programming.

Your statement seems to be implying (correctly) that LLMs can program, but just not as well as humans. If they're able to program presumably without "thinking" as you seem to be (implicitly) narrowly defining it, then why do you think that limits them to always being sub-par? It seems like if they can do it, that there's no reason they can't eventually be trained to do it better up to and beyond human performance. It…

I'm more interested in the conclusion that programming doesn't require thinking. And that's where the argument breaks. It seems so obvious, but sometimes the most obvious things are the least true.

Re: I am against GenAI and everything it stands for

#45

Post by impulser_ »

danaris wrote: post #39
impulser_ wrote: post #11

"If all of this was done to better humanity, AI development would be done in public, data would be legally obtained, models would be released for free, access wouldn't be gatekept behind ever increasing subscription costs." The vast majority of AI development is public. There are papers literally every single day to read. In fact everything you need to build Claude and GPT models is public. Thanks to Google, DeepSeek…

There are more ants than humans in the world, too. But which one is driving major changes to the world? Just because you can point to an absolute number of open source models doesn't mean much when the models that 99.9% of the world cares about aren't.

"models that 99.9% of the world cares about aren't."

Software engineers aren't 99.9% of the world.

Re: I am against GenAI and everything it stands for

#46

Post by supern0va »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #44
supern0va wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your statement seems to be implying (correctly) that LLMs can program, but just not as well as humans. If they're able to program presumably without "thinking" as you seem to be (implicitly) narrowly defining it, then why do you think that limits them to always being sub-par? It seems like if they can do it, that there's no reason they can't eventually be trained to do it better up to and beyond human performance. It…

I'm more interested in the conclusion that programming doesn't require thinking. And that's where the argument breaks. It seems so obvious, but sometimes the most obvious things are the least true.

>I'm more interested in the conclusion that programming doesn't require thinking.

I suspect it largely has to do with how one defines "thinking". It seems like people like to implicitly define it in such a way as to require a human (or animal), but there are many examples of thinking/intelligence in nature that don't require a brain or even neurons.

I'm genuinely curious: without using the word "think" with all of its ambiguity, can you articulate what it is that we're doing that these models are not capable of? Because it's pretty clear (to me, at least) from the research, particularly a lot of the mechanistic interpretability work coming out of Anthropic, that the models are at least doing something akin to what we think of as thinking, even if it appears foreign to us.

Like, I'm not sure how you could read this and not see some spark of seems like thinking: https://www.anthropic.com/research/tracing-thoughts-language...

Re: I am against GenAI and everything it stands for

#47

Post by supern0va »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #28
kelseyfrog wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Programming requires thinking and LLMs can't think. Therefore LLMs cannot be better than humans at programming.

What LLM’s can do now, 99.999% of people 3 years ago would say would only be possible with “thinking”. To claim that LLM’s aren’t thinking is sensible if your definition of thinking is inextricably linked to the chemical processes that occur in human brains, but then it ceases to be a useful definition with respect to evaluating a system’s ability to process information, form connections, and reason via abstraction.…

Yeah, I have to admit to finding it somewhat ironic that some individuals accuse the "pro AI" folks of magical thinking, when it seems that escalating levels of magical thinking are being used by the "anti" crowd to suggest that the models can never achieve something akin to human intelligence (particularly in light of the fact that they have on certain dimensions done exactly that).

It's pretty clear that there are significant differences between their intelligence and human intelligence. But that doesn't mean there isn't some sort of intelligence here.

Re: I am against GenAI and everything it stands for

#48

Post by thefz »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #42
thefz wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In 5-10 years AI is going to be so much better than even the best human coder How, if it learns from humans?

How did alphago become better than any human Go player?

Because it can Monte Carlo his ass out of problems, humans can't

Re: I am against GenAI and everything it stands for

#49

Post by nh23423fefe »

xigoi wrote: post #37
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #14

The thing I don't like about AI doomerism posts is the intellectual dishonesty. We're going to cure cancers we haven't cured before, using AI. We're going to make better diagnoses faster. Adults will be able to accomplish more tasks due to the reduction in the barrier of specialized knowledge and skill. Kids that grow up today will be able to solve their own problems 100x faster and easier than we do today. Companies…

> We're going to cure cancers we haven't cured before “You’re absolutely right – I applied the invasive treatment to the wrong leg. Would you like me to try again?” > Kids that grow up today will be able to solve their own problems 100x faster and easier than we do today. Not if they stop thinking on their own. > We will likely spend less money How exactly does the tool that costs hundreds of dollars per month help m…

Do you see why this willfully weak nonsense is doomerism?

Your leg example is drawn from human error.

Socrates complained about writing 2500 years ago.

Costs obviously go down.

What point are you making? You are a lazy human.

Re: I am against GenAI and everything it stands for

#50

Post by xigoi »

nh23423fefe wrote: post #49
xigoi wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We're going to cure cancers we haven't cured before “You’re absolutely right – I applied the invasive treatment to the wrong leg. Would you like me to try again?” > Kids that grow up today will be able to solve their own problems 100x faster and easier than we do today. Not if they stop thinking on their own. > We will likely spend less money How exactly does the tool that costs hundreds of dollars per month help m…

Do you see why this willfully weak nonsense is doomerism? Your leg example is drawn from human error. Socrates complained about writing 2500 years ago. Costs obviously go down. What point are you making? You are a lazy human.

> Your leg example is drawn from human error.

At least a human doctor tries to avoid such mistakes because they want to help the patient and could face liability if they do it wrong.

> Socrates complained about writing 2500 years ago.

How is that relevant?

> Costs obviously go down.

They will go way up when the VC investors start demanding their money back.

Post reply on HN