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

471–480 of 920 posts

Re: AI is different

#471

Post by yladiz »

BoorishBears wrote: post #395
yladiz wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Low six figures is quite expensive, and unobtainable to a large number of people.

Not even close. It's a 2-ton vehicle that can self-drive reliably enough to be roving a city 24/7 without a safety driver. The measure of expensive for that isn't "can everyone afford it", the fact we can even afford to let anyone ride them is a small wonder.

I’m a bit confused. If we’re talking about consumer cars, the end goal is not to rent a car that can drive itself, the end goal is to own a car that can drive itself, and so it doesn’t matter if the car is available for purchase but costs $250,000 because few consumers can afford that, even wealthy ones.

Re: AI is different

#472

Post by yladiz »

ACCount37 wrote: post #447
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are notoriously bad at driving, especially in poor weather. There are more than 6 million accidents annually in the US, which is >16k a day. Most are minor, but even so - beating that shouldn't be a high bar. There is no good reason not to use LIDAR with other sensing technologies, because cameras-only just makes the job harder.

Self-driving cars beat humans on safety already. This holds for Waymos and Teslas both. They get into less accidents, mile for mile and road type for road type, and the ones they get into trend towards less severe. Why? Because self-driving cars don't drink and drive. This is the critical safety edge a machine holds over a human. A top tier human driver in the top shape outperforms this generation of car AIs. But a c…

Do you have independent studies to back up your assertion that they are safer per distance than a human driver?

Re: AI is different

#474

Post by keiferski »

antirez wrote: post #465
keiferski wrote: post #411

There’s a simple flaw in this reasoning: Just because X can be replaced by Y today doesn’t imply that it can do so in a Future where we are aware of Y, and factor it into the background assumptions about the task. In more concrete terms: if “not being powered by AI” becomes a competitive advantage, then AI won’t be meaningfully replacing anything in that market. You can already see this with YouTube: AI-generated vid…

To understand why this is too optimistic, you have to look at things where AI is already almost human-level. Translations are more and more done exclusively with AI or with a massive AI help (with the effect of destroying many jobs anyway) at this point. Now ebook reading is switching to AI. Book and music album covers are often done with AI (even if this is most of the times NOT advertised), and so forth. If AI prog…

I can buy the idea that simple specific tasks like translation will be dramatically cut down by AI.

But even then – any serious legal situation (like a contract) is going to want a human in the loop to verify that the translation is actually correct. This will require actual translator skills.

AI art seems to basically only be viable when it can’t be identified as AI art. Which might not matter if the intention is to replace cheap graphic design work. But it’s certainly nowhere near developed enough to create anything more sophisticated, sophisticated enough to both read as human-made and have the imperfect artifacts of a human creator. A lot of the modern arts are also personality-driven, where the identity and publicity of the artist is a key part of their reception. There are relatively few totally anonymous artists.

Beyond these very specific examples, however, I don’t think it follows that all or most jobs are going to be replaced by an AI, for the reasons I already stated. You have to factor in the sociopolitical effects of technology on its adoption and spread, not merely the technical ones.

Re: AI is different

#475

Post by inquirerGeneral »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #433
keiferski wrote: post #411

There’s a simple flaw in this reasoning: Just because X can be replaced by Y today doesn’t imply that it can do so in a Future where we are aware of Y, and factor it into the background assumptions about the task. In more concrete terms: if “not being powered by AI” becomes a competitive advantage, then AI won’t be meaningfully replacing anything in that market. You can already see this with YouTube: AI-generated vid…

That’s the fundamental issue with most “analysis”, and most discussions really, on HN. Since the vast vast majority of writers and commentators are not literal geniuses… they can’t reliably produce high quality synthetic analysis, outside of very narrow niches. Even though for most comment chains on HN to make sense, readers certainly have to pretend some meaningful text was produced beyond happenstance. Partly becau…

[dead]

Re: AI is different

#476

Post by Waterluvian »

hashmush wrote: post #360
sebmellen wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a sense, LLMs emergently figured out the deep structure of language before we did, and that’s the most remarkable thing about them.

I dunno, it seems you have figured it out too, probably before LLMs? I'd say all speakers of all languages have figured it out and your statement is quite confusing, at least to me.

We all make grammar mistakes but I’ve yet to see the main LLMs make any.

Re: AI is different

#477

Post by manyaoman »

Davidzheng wrote: post #114

I actually find it hard to understand how the market is supposed to react if the AI capabilities does surpass all humans in all domains. It's first of all not clear such a scenario leads to runaway wealth for a few, even though with no outside events that may be the outcome. However, such scenarios are so unsustainable and catastrophic it's hard to imagine there are no catastrophic reactions to it. How is the market…

Agreed, if the author truly thinks the markets are wrong about AI, he should at least let us know what kind of bets he’s making to profit from it. Otherwise the article is just handwaving.

Re: AI is different

#478

Post by danielbln »

jhbadger wrote: post #425
keiferski wrote: post #411

There’s a simple flaw in this reasoning: Just because X can be replaced by Y today doesn’t imply that it can do so in a Future where we are aware of Y, and factor it into the background assumptions about the task. In more concrete terms: if “not being powered by AI” becomes a competitive advantage, then AI won’t be meaningfully replacing anything in that market. You can already see this with YouTube: AI-generated vid…

>You can already see this with YouTube: AI-generated videos are a mild amusement, not a replacement for video creators, because made by AI is becoming a negative label in a world where the presence of AI video is widely known. But that's because, at present, AI generated video isn't very good. Consider the history of CGI. In the 1990s and early 2000s, it was common to complain about how the move away from practical s…

Ironically, while the non-CGI SFX in e.g. Interstellar looked amazing, that sad fizzle of a practical explosion in Oppenheimer did not do the real thing justice and would've been better served by proper CGI VFX.

Re: AI is different

#479

Post by ACCount37 »

vrighter wrote: post #438
ACCount37 wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

if additional sensors improve the ai, then your last statement is categorically untrue. The reason it worked better is that those additional sensors gave it information that wac not available in the video stream

"If."

So far, every self-driving accident where the self-driving car was found to be at fault follows the same pattern: the car had all the sensory data it needed to make the right call, and it didn't make the right call. The bottleneck isn't in sensors.

Re: AI is different

#480

Post by exitb »

narrator wrote: post #466

I like to point out that ASI will allow us to do superhuman stuff that was previously beyond all human capability. For example, one of the tasks we could put ASI to work doing is to ask it to design implants that would go into the legs that would be powered by light, or electric induction that would use ASI designed protein metabolic chains to electrically transform carbon dioxide into oxygen and ADP into ATP so to p…

It feels like it’s been a really long time since humans invented anything just by thinking about it. At this stage we mostly progress by cycling between ideas and practical experiments. The experiments are needed not because we’re not smart enough to reason correctly with data we have, but because we lack data to reason about. I don’t see how more intelligent AI will tighten that loop significantly.
Post reply on HN