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

AI is not a coworker, it's an exoskeleton

kasava.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 608 posts

Re: AI is not a coworker, it's an exoskeleton

#451

Post by lp4v4n »

alphazard wrote: post #158

There's an undertone of self-soothing "AI will leverage me, not replace me", which I don't agree with especially in the long run, at least in software. In the end it will be the users sculpting formal systems like playdoh. In the medium run, "AI is not a co-worker" is exactly right. The idea of a co-worker will go away. Human collaboration on software is fundamentally inefficient. We pay huge communication/synchroniz…

>In the end it will be the users sculpting formal systems like playdoh.

Yet another person who thinks that there is a silver bullet for complexity. The mythical intelligent machines that from poorly described natural language can erect flawless complex system is like the philosopher's stone of our time.

Re: AI is not a coworker, it's an exoskeleton

#454

Post by veunes »

PeterStuer wrote: post #452

Neither. Closest analogy to you and the AI is those 'self driving' test subjects that had to sit in the driver's seat, so that compliance boxes could be checked and there was someone to blaim whenever someone got hit.

In the self-driving case, the safety driver often isn't contributing much to the system's performance

Re: AI is not a coworker, it's an exoskeleton

#455

Post by veunes »

alphazard wrote: post #158

There's an undertone of self-soothing "AI will leverage me, not replace me", which I don't agree with especially in the long run, at least in software. In the end it will be the users sculpting formal systems like playdoh. In the medium run, "AI is not a co-worker" is exactly right. The idea of a co-worker will go away. Human collaboration on software is fundamentally inefficient. We pay huge communication/synchroniz…

Communication overhead between humans is real, but it's not just inefficiency, it's also where a lot of the problem-finding happens. Many of the biggest failures I've seen weren't because nobody could type the code fast enough, but because nobody realized early enough that the thing being built was wrong, brittle or solving the wrong problem

Re: AI is not a coworker, it's an exoskeleton

#456

Post by veunes »

Frieren wrote: post #375

100% exoskeleton is a great analogy. An exoskeleton is something really cool in movies that has zero reason to be build in reality because there are way more practical approaches. That is why we have all kind of vehicles, or programmable robot arm that do the job for themselves or if you need a human at the helm one just adds a remote controller with levers and buttons. But making a human shaped gigantic robot with a…

Ironically, the fact that fully autonomous systems are more efficient when feasible is exactly why the exoskeleton analogy makes sense

Re: AI is not a coworker, it's an exoskeleton

#457

Post by veunes »

ilaksh wrote: post #416

Who is actually trying to use a fully autonomous AI employee right now? Isn't everyone using agentic copilots or workflows with agent loops in them? It seems that they are arguing against doing something that almost no one is doing yet. But actually the AI Employee is coming by the end of 2026 and the fully autonomous AI Company in 2027 sometime. Many people have been working on versions of these things for awhile. B…

My guess is we'll see a gradual slope rather than a cliff

Re: AI is not a coworker, it's an exoskeleton

#458

Post by emp17344 »

elar_verole wrote: post #395
Tade0 wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I either accidentally pasted it somewhere and removed, forgetting about doing that or it's reading the clipboard. The suggestion it gave me started with the contents of the clipboard and expanded to scenario A.

Sorry to sound rude - but you polluted the context, pointing to the fact you would like A, and then found it annoying it tried to do A ?

Oh, please. There’s always a way to blame the user, it’s a catch-22. The fact is that coding agents aren’t perfect and it’s quite common for them to fail. Refer to the recent C-compiler nonsense Anthropic tried to pull for proof.

Re: AI is not a coworker, it's an exoskeleton

#459

Post by emp17344 »

gaigalas wrote: post #354
LoganDark wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of the space of artificial intelligence is based on a goal of a general reasoning machine comparable to the reasoning of a human. There are many subfields that are less concerned with this, but in practice, artificial intelligence is perceived to have that goal. I am sure the output of current frontier models is convincing enough to outperform the appearance of humans to some. There is still an ongoing outcry fr…

That's not a citation.

That’s because there’s no objective research on this. Similarly, there are no good citations to support your objection. They simply don’t exist yet.

Re: AI is not a coworker, it's an exoskeleton

#460

Post by emp17344 »

MrOrelliOReilly wrote: post #306
LoganDark wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're describing is not finding flaws in code. It's summarizing, which current models are known to be relatively good at. It is true that models can happen to produce a sound reasoning process. This is probabilistic however (moreso than humans, anyway). There is no known sampling method that can guarantee a deterministic result without significantly quashing the output space (excluding most correct solutions).…

This all sounds like the stochastic parrot fallacy. Total determinism is not the goal, and it not a prerequisite for general intelligence. As you allude to above, humans are also not fully deterministic. I don't see what hard theoretical barriers you've presented toward AGI or future ASI.

Did you just invent a nonsense fallacy to use as a bludgeon here? “Stochastic parrot fallacy” does not exist, and there actually quite a bit of evidence supporting the stochastic parrot hypothesis.
Post reply on HN