Live data from Hacker News

AI adoption and Solow's productivity paradox

fortune.com

491–500 of 783 posts

Re: AI adoption and Solow's productivity paradox

#491

My experience has been * If I don't know how to do something, llms can get me started really fast. Basically it distills the time taken to research something to a small amount. * if I know something well, I find myself trying to guide the llm to make the best decisions. I haven't reached the state of completely letting go and trusting the llm yet, because the llm doesn't make good long term decisions * when working a…

> llms can get me started really fast. Basically it distills the time taken to research something > the llm doesn't make good long term decisions What could possibly go wrong, using something you know makes bad decisions, as the basis of your learning something new. It's like if a dietician instructed a client to go watch McDonald's staff, when they ask how to cook the type of meals that have been recommended.

I’m bearish on AI, but I still think this is disingenuous. My grade school math teachers were probably not well-versed in Calculus and Real Analysis, but they helped me learn my time tables just as well.

AI is great at exposing you to what you don’t even know you don’t know: your personal unknown unknowns, the complexity you’re completely unaware of.

Re: AI adoption and Solow's productivity paradox

#492
post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> LLM's are notoriously bad at this. The noise to signal ratio is unacceptably high I could go either way on the future of this, but if you take the argument that we're still early days, this may not hold. They're notoriously bad at this so far . We could still be in the PC DOS 3.X era in this timeline. Wait until we hit the Windows 3.1, or 95 equivalent. Personally, I have seen shocking improvements in the past 3 mo…

I would like to see the day when the context size is in gigabytes or tens of billions of tokens, not RAG or whatever, actual context.

> I would like to see the day when the context size is in gigabytes or tens of billions of tokens, not RAG or whatever, actual context.

Might not make a difference. I believe we are already at the point of negative returns - doubling context from 800k tokens to 1600k tokens loses a larger percentage of context than halving it from 800k tokens to 400k tokens.

Re: AI adoption and Solow's productivity paradox

#493
post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems more like they're implying it's those at the top think that about other people.

Nope, the entire statement betrays a combination of ignorance and arrogance that is best explained by them seeing most everyone else as beneath them.

Hard miss. GP is right, and your assumptions say more about you than about me. :^)

Re: AI adoption and Solow's productivity paradox

#494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think "results don't match promises" is the same as "not knowing how to use it". I've been using Claude and OpenAI's latest models for the past two weeks now (probably moving at about 1000 lines of code a day, which is what I can comfortably review), and it makes subtle hard-to-find mistakes all over the place. Or it just misunderstands well known design patterns, or does something bone headed. I'm fine with…

If you know good architecture and you are testing as you go, I would say, it is probably pretty damn close to being able to build a company without looking at the code. Not without "risk" but definitely doable and plausible. My current project that I started this weekend is a rust client server game with the client compiled into web assembly. I do these projects without reading the code at all as a way to gauge what…

What’s the game? Genuinely curious!

Re: AI adoption and Solow's productivity paradox

#495
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that highly unlikely, coding is the AIs best value use case by far. Right now office workers see marginal benefits but it's not like it's an order of magnitude difference. AI drafts an email, you have to check and edit it, then send it. In many cases it's a toss up if that actually saved time, and then if it did, it's not like the pace of work is break neck anyway, so the benefit is some office workers have a…

Not all code generates economic value. See slacks, jiras, etc constant ui updates.

High quality code that does exactly what it needs to do and well and that makes various actors and organizations far more efficient at their jobs... but their jobs are of negative economic value overall.

Re: AI adoption and Solow's productivity paradox

#497
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comparison seems flawed in terms of cost. A Claude subscription is 20 bucks per worker if using personal accounts billed to the company, which is not very far from common office tools like slack. Onboarding a worker to Claude or ChatGPT is ridiculously easy compared to teaching a 1970’s manual office worker to use an early computer. Larger implementations like automating customer service might be more costly, but…

What if LLMs are optimizing the average office worker's productivity but the work itself simply has no discernable economic value? This is argued at length in Grebber's Bullshit Jobs essay and book.

This is what I have been saying for sometime. Working inside different Goverment department you see this happening every day. Email and report bouncing back and forth with no actual added value while feeling extremely productive. That is why private sector and public sector generally don't mix well. It is also one reason why I said in some of my previous post LLM could replace up to 70% of Goverment's job.

Edit: If anyone haven't watched Yes Minster, you should go and watch it, it is a documentary on UK Government that is still true today as it was 40-50 years ago.

Re: AI adoption and Solow's productivity paradox

#498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are forgetting that they are now going to use AI to summarize it back.

This is one of my major concerns about people trying to use these tools for 'efficiency'. The only plausible value in somebody writing a huge report and somebody else reading it is information transfer. LLM's are notoriously bad at this. The noise to signal ratio is unacceptably high, and you will be worse off reading the summary than if you skimmed the first and last pages. In fact, you will be worse off than if you…

> Using AI to output noise and learn nothing at breakneck speeds is worse than simply looking out the window, because you now have a false sense of security about your understanding of the material.

i may put this into my email signature with your permission, this is a whip-smart sentence.

and it is true. i used AI to "curate information" for me when i was heads-down deep in learning mode, about sound and music.

there was enough all-important info being omitted, i soon realized i was developing a textbook case of superficial, incomplete knowledge.

i stopped using AI and did it all over again through books and learning by doing. in retrospect, i'm glad to have had that experience because it taught me something about knowledge and learning.

mostly that something boils down to RTFM. a good manual or technical book written by an expert doesn't have a lot of fluff. what exactly are you expecting the AI to do? zip the rar file? it will do something, it might look great, lossless compression it will be not.

P.S. not a prompt skill issue. i was up to date on cutting edge prompting techniques and using multiple frontier models. i was developing an app using local models and audio analysis AI-powered libraries. in other words i was up to my neck immersed in AI.

after i grokked as much as i could, given my limited math knowledge, of the underlying tech from reading the theory, i realized the skill issue invectives don't hold water. if things break exactly in the way they're expected to break as per their design, it's a little too much on the nose. even appealing to your impostor syndrome won't work.

P.P.S. it's interesting how a lot of the slogans of the AI party are weaponizing trauma triggers or appealing to character weaknesses.

"hop on the train, commit fully, or you'll be left behind" > fear of abandonment trigger

"pah, skill issue. my prompts on the other hand...i'm afraid i can't share them as this IP is making me millions of passive income as we speak (i know you won't probe further cause asking a person about their finances is impolite)" > imposter syndrome inducer par excellence, also FOMO -- thinking to yourself "how long can the gold rush last? this person is raking it in!! what am i doing? the miserable sod i am"

1. outlandish claims (Claude writes ALL the code) noone can seem to reproduce, and indeed everyone non-affiliated is having a very different experience

2. some of the darkest patterns you've seen in marketing are the key tenets of the gospel

3. it's probably a duck.

i've been 100% clear on the grift since October '25. Steve Eisman of the "Big Short" was just hopping onto the hype train back then. i thought...oh. how much analysis does this guru of analysts really make? now Steve sings of AI panic and blood in the streets.

these things really make you think, about what an economy even is. it sure doesn't seem to have a lot to do with supply and demand, products and services, and all those archaisms.

Re: AI adoption and Solow's productivity paradox

#499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a layman, I have to say the collective credibility of economists does not inspire confidence.

I love economics but it is a field of study that we don't have the proper tools to properly study the subject yet. Modern economics is literally a bullshit job generating process or complex system.

What's particularly ironic is that economists are redundant from a mainstream economics perspective. They'd be the first job to cut.

Re: AI adoption and Solow's productivity paradox

#500
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a phase, I’d argue that 90% of modern jobs are bullshit to keep cattle occupied and economy rolling.

Jobs you don’t notice or understand often look pointless. HR on the surface seems unimportant, but you’d notice if the company stopped having health insurance or sending your taxes to the IRS etc etc. In the end when jobs are done right they seem to disappear. We notice crappy software or a poorly done HVAC system not clean carpets.

> HR on the surface seems unimportant, but you’d notice if the company stopped having health insurance or sending your taxes to the IRS etc etc.

That's not why companies have HR; sure, it's a nice side-effect, but it's not the reason for HR.

HR exists primarily to protect the company from the employees.

Post reply on HN