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

401–410 of 920 posts

Re: AI is different

#401

Post by bayindirh »

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.

Even though it's false, let's imagine that's true.

Our cameras (also called eyes) have way better dynamic range, focus speed, resolution and movement detection capabilities, Backed by a reduced bandwidth peripheral vision which is also capable of detecting movement.

No camera, incl. professional/medium format still cameras are that capable. I think one of the car manufacturers made a combined tele/wide lens system for a single camera which can see both at the same time, but that's it.

Dynamic range, focus speed, resolution, FoV and motion detection still lacks.

...and that's when we imagine that we only use our eyes.

Re: AI is different

#402

Post by BoorishBears »

saint_yossarian wrote: post #351
BoorishBears wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've ridden just under 1,000 miles in autonmous (no scare quotes) Waymos, so it's strange to see someone letting Tesla's abject failure inform their opinions on how much progress AVs have made. Tesla that got fired as a customer by Mobileye for abusing their L2 tech is your yardstick? Anyways, Waymo's DC launch is next year, I wonder what the new goalpost will be.

How many of those rides required human intervention by Waymo's remote operators? From what I can tell they're not sharing that information.

I worked at Zoox, which has similar teleoperations to Waymo: remote operators can't joystick the vehicles.

So if we're saying how many times would it have crashed without a human: 0.

They generally intervene when the vehicles get stuck and that happens pretty rarely, typically because humans are doing something odd like blocking the way.

Re: AI is different

#403

Post by ori_b »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #352
mmmore wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a thoughtful post related to your lump of labor point: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TkWCKzWjcbfGzdNK5/applying-t... What economists have taken seriously the premise that AI will be able to do any job a human can more efficiently and fully thought through it's implications? i.e. a society where (human) labor is unnecessary to create goods/provide services and only capital and natural resources are required.…

If it is decades or centuries off, is it really understudied? LLMs are so far from "AI will be able to do any job a human can more efficiently and fully" that we aren't even in the same galaxy.

Decades isn't a long time.

Re: AI is different

#404

Post by wouldbecouldbe »

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…

Yeah but those opening of new kind of jobs has not always been instantly. It can take decades and for instance was one of the reasons for the French Revolution. Internet has already created a huge amount of monopolies and wealth concentration. AI seems likely to do this further.

Re: AI is different

#405

Post by silveraxe93 »

andrewmutz wrote: post #201

Reading smart software people talk about AI in 2025 is basically just reading variations on the lump of labor fallacy. If you want to understand what AI can do, listen to computer scientists. If you want to understand it’s likely impact on society, listen to economists.

The title - "AI is different" - and this line:

""" Yet the economic markets are reacting as if they were governed by stochastic parrots. Their pattern matching wants that previous technologies booms created more business opportunities, so investors are polarized to think the same will happen with AI. """

Are a direct argument against your point.

If people were completely unaware of the lump of labor fallacy, I'd understand you comment. It would be adding extra information into the conversation. But this is not it. The "lump of labor fallacy" is not a physical law. If someone is literally arguing that it doesn't apply in this case, you can't just parrot it back and leave. That's not a counter argument.

Re: AI is different

#406

Post by einarfd »

chrisco255 wrote: post #42
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…

> but which can be trained to the new job opportunities more easily than humans can What makes you think that? Self driving cars have had untold billions of dollars in reaearch and decades in applied testing, iteration, active monitoring, etc and it still has a very long tail of unaddressed issues. They've been known to ignore police traffic redirections, they've run right through construction barriers, and recently…

Driverless taxis is IMO the wrong tech to compare to. It’s a high consequence, low acceptance of error, real time task. Where it’s really hard to undo errors.

There is a big category of tasks that isn’t that. But that are economically significant. Those are a lot better fit for AI.

Re: AI is different

#407

Post by a2128 »

klipklop wrote: post #147
devmor wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? The internet did that ages ago. We just pretended it didn't because some students didn't know how to use Google.

You are mistaken, Google could not write a bespoke English essay for you. Complete with intentional mistakes to throw off the professor.

In English class we had a lot of book-reading and writing texts about those books. Sparknotes and similar sites allowed you to skip reading and get a distilled understanding of its contents, similar to interacting with an LLM

Re: AI is different

#408

Post by chrz »

xgkickt wrote: post #179
bamboozled wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s probably the only technology that is designed to replace humans as its primary goal. It’s the VC dream.

I do wonder if the amount they're spending on it is going to be cost effective versus letting humans continue doing the work.

It is for some shareholder as long as the hype and stocks go up

Re: AI is different

#409

Post by ACCount37 »

BuckRogers wrote: post #310
ACCount37 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except a car isn’t a human. That’s the mistake Elon Musk made and the same one you’re making here. Not to mention that humans driving with cameras only is absolutely pathetic. The amount of accidents that occur that are completely avoidable doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that all my car needs to be safe and get me to my destination is a couple cameras.

This isn't a "mistake". This is the key problem of getting self-driving to work.

Elon Musk is right. You can't cram 20 radars, 50 LIDARs and 100 cameras into a car and declare self-driving solved. No amount of sensors can redeem a piss poor driving AI.

Conversely, if you can build an AI that's good enough, then you don't need a lot of sensors. All the data a car needs to drive safely is already there - right in the camera data stream.

Re: AI is different

#410

Post by righthand »

yard2010 wrote: post #265

I think so too - the latest AI changes mark the new "automate everything" era. When everything is automated, everything costs basically zero, as this will eliminate the most expensive part of every business - human labor. No one will make money from all the automated stuff, but no one would need the money anyway. This will create a society in which money is not the only value pursued. Instead of trying to chase paper…

Are humans meant to create art and celebrate life. That just seems like something people into automation tell people.

Really as a human I’ve physically evolved to move and think in a dynamic way. But automation has reduced the need for me to work and think.

Do you not know the earth is saturated with artists already? There’s whole class of people that consider themselves technically minded and not really artists. Will they just roll over and die?

Everything basically costs zero is a pipe dream where there is no social order or economic system. Even in your basically zero system there is a lot of cost being hand waved away.

I think you need a rethink on your 20 year thought.

Post reply on HN