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

461–470 of 608 posts

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

#461

Post by emp17344 »

jychang wrote: post #320
lpapez wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you only realized how ridiculous your statement is, you never would have stated it.

It's also literally factually incorrect. Pretty much the entire field of mechanistic interpretability would obviously point out that models have an internal definition of what a bug is. Here's the most approachable paper that shows a real model (Claude 3 Sonnet) clearly having an internal representation of bugs in code: https://transformer-circuits.pub/2024/scaling-monosemanticit... Read the entire section around thi…

Mechanistic interpretability is a joke, supported entirely by non-peer reviewed papers released as marketing material by AI firms.

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

#462

Post by runarberg »

dwohnitmok wrote: post #446
runarberg wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did indeed miss something. I learned after posting (but before my EDIT) that there are anchor engines that they play. However these benchmarks still have flaws. The two illegal moves = forfeit is an odd rule which the authors of the benchmarks (which in this case was Claude Code) added[1] for mysterious reasons. In competitive play if you play an illegal move you forfeit the game. Second (and this is a minor one) M…

> The two illegal moves = forfeit is an odd rule which the authors of the benchmarks (which in this case was Claude Code) added[1] for mysterious reasons. In competitive play if you play an illegal move you forfeit the game. This is not true. This is clearly spelled out in FIDE rules and is upheld at tournaments. First illegal move is a warning and reset. Second illegal move is forfeit. See here https://rcc.fide.com/…

>> 7.5.5 After the action taken under Article 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.3 or 7.5.4 for the first completed illegal move by a player, the arbiter shall give two minutes extra time to his/her opponent; for the second completed illegal move by the same player the arbiter shall declare the game lost by this player. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

I stand corrected.

I’ve never actually played competitive chess, I’ve just heard this from people who do. And I thought I remembered once in the Icelandic championships where a player touched one piece but moved the other, and subsequently made to forfeit the game.

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

#463

Post by emp17344 »

ACCount37 wrote: post #390
mrbungie wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was this "paper" eventually peer reviewed? PS: I know it is interesting and I don't doubt Antrophic, but for me it is so fascinating they get such a pass in science.

Modern ML is old school mad science. The lifeblood of the field is proof-of-concept pre-prints built on top of other proof-of-concept pre-prints.

Sounds like you agree this “evidence” lacks any semblance of scientific rigor?

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

#464

Post by wcfrobert »

Ultimately, AI is meant to replace you, not empower you.

1 - This exoskeleton analogy might hold true for a couple more years at most. While it is comforting to suggest that AI empowers workers to be more productive, like chess, AI will soon plan better, execute better, and have better taste. Human-in-the-loop will just be far worse than letting AI do everything.

2 - Dario and Dwarkesh were openly chatting about how the total addressable market (TAM) for AI is the entirety of human labor market (i.e. your wage). First is the replacement of white-collar labor, then blue-collar labor once robotics is solved. On the road to AGI, your employment, and the ability to feed your family, is a minor nuisance. The value of your mental labor will continue to plummet in the coming years.

Please talk me out of this...

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

#465

Post by emp17344 »

jychang wrote: post #290
Lionga wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Polysemantic features in modern transformer architectures (e.g., with grouped-query attention) are not discretely addressable, semantically stable units but superposed, context-dependent activation patterns distributed across layers and attention heads, so there is no principled mechanism by which a single circuit or feature can reliably and specifically encode “a particular code error” in a way that is isolable, cau…

Nice LLM generated text. Now go read https://transformer-circuits.pub/2024/scaling-monosemanticit... or https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.19382 to see why that text is outdated. Or read any paper in the entire field of mechanistic interpretability (from the past year or two), really. Hint: the first paper is titled "Scaling Monosemanticity: Extracting Interpretable Features from Claude 3 Sonnet" and you can ctrl-f for "We f…

Your entire argument is derived from a pseudoscientific field without any peer-reviewed research. Mechanistic interpretability is a joke invented by AI firms to sell chatbots.

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

#466

Post by chpatrick »

pousada wrote: post #418
windexh8er wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Current LLMs do not think. Just because all models anthropomorphize the repetitive actions a model is looping through does not mean they are truly thinking or reasoning. On the flip side the idea of this being true has been a very successful indirect marketing campaign.

What does “truly thinking or reasoning” even mean for you? I don’t think we even have a coherent definition of human intelligence, let alone of non-human ones.

Everyone knows to really think you need to use your fleshy meat brain, everything else is cheating.

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

#467

Post by andrei_says_ »

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…

LLM technology does not have a connection with reality nor venues providing actual understanding.

Correction of conceptual errors require understanding.

Vomiting large amounts of inscrutable unmaintainable code for every change is not exactly an ideal replacement for a human.

We have not started to scratch the surface of the technical debt created by these systems at lightning speed.

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

#468

Post by Krssst »

nnevatie wrote: post #398

"It's not X, it's Y" detected.

Not sure how reliable is gptzero, but it says 90% AI for the first paragraph. (I like to do some sanity check before wasting my time).

Would be nice to have some browser extension automatically detecting likely AI output using a local model and highlighting it, but probably too compute-intensive.

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

#469

Post by andrei_says_ »

wcfrobert wrote: post #464

Ultimately, AI is meant to replace you, not empower you. 1 - This exoskeleton analogy might hold true for a couple more years at most. While it is comforting to suggest that AI empowers workers to be more productive, like chess, AI will soon plan better, execute better, and have better taste. Human-in-the-loop will just be far worse than letting AI do everything. 2 - Dario and Dwarkesh were openly chatting about how…

AGI is a sales pitch, not a realistic goal achievable by LLM-based technology. The exponential growth sold to investors is also a pitch, not reality.

What’s being sold is at best hopes and more realistically, lies.

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

#470

Post by runarberg »

dwohnitmok wrote: post #446
runarberg wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did indeed miss something. I learned after posting (but before my EDIT) that there are anchor engines that they play. However these benchmarks still have flaws. The two illegal moves = forfeit is an odd rule which the authors of the benchmarks (which in this case was Claude Code) added[1] for mysterious reasons. In competitive play if you play an illegal move you forfeit the game. Second (and this is a minor one) M…

> The two illegal moves = forfeit is an odd rule which the authors of the benchmarks (which in this case was Claude Code) added[1] for mysterious reasons. In competitive play if you play an illegal move you forfeit the game. This is not true. This is clearly spelled out in FIDE rules and is upheld at tournaments. First illegal move is a warning and reset. Second illegal move is forfeit. See here https://rcc.fide.com/…

Replying in a split thread to clearly separate where I was wrong.

If Gemini is so good at chess because of a non-LLM feature of the model, then it is kind of disingenuous to rate it as an LLM and claim that LLMs are approaching 2000 ELO. But the fact it still plays illegal moves sometimes, is biased towards popular moves, etc. makes me think that chess is still handled by an LLM, and makes me suspect benchmaxxing.

But even if no foul play, and Gemini is truly a capable chess player with nothing but an LLM underneath it, then all we can conclude is that Gemini can play chess well, and we cannot generalize to other LLMs who play about the level of random bot. My fourth point above was my strongest point. There are only 4 anchor engines, one beats all LLMs, second beats all except Gemini, the third beats all LLMs except Gemini and Survival bot (what is Survival bot even doing there?) and the forth is random bot.

Post reply on HN