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

AI (2014)

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 72 posts

Re: AI (2014)

#51

Post by ugtr3 »

mofeien wrote: post #46
Jensson wrote: post #4

> And maybe we don't want to build machines that are concious in this sense. The most positive outcome I can think of is one where computers get really good at doing, and humans get really good at thinking. If we never figure out how to make computers creative, then there will be a very natural division of labor between man and machine. This is where LLM is currently going. Not really AGI since they can't think like…

> > The most positive outcome I can think of is one where computers get really good at doing, and humans get really good at thinking. > This is where LLM is currently going. This is not where LLMs are currently going. They are trained and benchmarked explicitly in all areas that humans produce economically and cognitively valuable work: STEM fields, computer use, robotics, etc. Systems are already emerging where AI a…

lol what a load of gibberish.

Re: AI (2014)

#52

Post by plaidfuji »

Jensson wrote: post #4

> And maybe we don't want to build machines that are concious in this sense. The most positive outcome I can think of is one where computers get really good at doing, and humans get really good at thinking. If we never figure out how to make computers creative, then there will be a very natural division of labor between man and machine. This is where LLM is currently going. Not really AGI since they can't think like…

Came here to quote the same sentence, but say the exact opposite - it seems to me that today’s LLMs are progressing far faster on the “thinking” front than the “doing”.

I suppose it depends on your definition of “doing” - if it’s “writing code”, then sure. But there’s a whole world of actual, physical “doing” that AI is nowhere close to matching humans at, and it’s much easier for me to envision a world where AI replaces the management / “thinking” layer of society than the physical labor. Which is scary, because it’s the opposite of his (and I would assume most people’s) ideal.

Re: AI (2014)

#53

Post by ugtr3 »

Jensson wrote: post #41
virgildotcodes wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how this doesn't equally apply to the pre-AI economy. The results there have been quite stark, with the "entrepreneurs" ending up far better off than the "employees".

> I don't see how this doesn't equally apply to the pre-AI economy. The results there have been quite stark, with the "entrepreneurs" ending up far better off than the "employees". This is wrong, in most cases the entrepreneur is worse off than the employees, since the entrepreneur spent all his savings on the projects and the employees walks away with all the money they got from their salaries. And even when it is f…

It depends on risk preferences.

Risk seekers should be entrepreneurs.

Risk averse people, probably, should not.

Re: AI (2014)

#54

Post by jack_pp »

mmustapic wrote: post #36
cheschire wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must have had limited exposure to uncreative types. You might be shocked to find there are people that can do nothing more than follow checklists. Sometimes it's a lack of capacity for novel thinking. Sometimes it's fear caused by past trauma. Or it can be age. Or an inability to overcome habits. The list goes on, but the point is that I've had to work with or supervise employees (even in IT!) that didn't have a…

You are only thinking about people and creativity in the workplace. Creativity can be applied anywhere: cooking, a new route on your way to somewhere, read some random paragraphs in a book that spawns new thoughts, a new game with a child, optimize the way you paint the walls on your house, choose the plants in your garden (and how you'll water them), do a doodle, try or buy a new outfit, typing this paragraph in res…

Sure and all the same, most people just don't have it.

Re: AI (2014)

#55

Post by jstummbillig »

DeathArrow wrote: post #27

In a sane world AI revolution would be driven by the likes of Andrew Ng, Andrej Karpathy, Yann LeCun and not by a brigade of Sam Altmans.

Is the novel idea behind this recurring critique that a CEO must be the chief scientist or that we uniquely hate Sam Altman over all other CEOs?

Re: AI (2014)

#56

Post by jack_pp »

Jensson wrote: post #15
oytis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an expression of class thinking from the beginning IMO. People think of themselves as thinkers and creators, while those who do labour they rely on without getting too much into details are merely doers and can ideally be replaced. But it's really thinking and creativity all the way down if you try to learn to do things well

> But it's really thinking and creativity all the way down if you try to learn to do things well Yes, everyone starts out creative. But we all can tell the difference between a worker that is still creative and learning and a worker that gave up creativity and is just doing his job. The first will still be useful in this AI age the second will be replaced by AI learning what he already knows.

> Yes, everyone starts out creative.

Are there studies done on this or is this just wishful thinking?

Re: AI (2014)

#57

Post by Jensson »

jack_pp wrote: post #56
Jensson wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it's really thinking and creativity all the way down if you try to learn to do things well Yes, everyone starts out creative. But we all can tell the difference between a worker that is still creative and learning and a worker that gave up creativity and is just doing his job. The first will still be useful in this AI age the second will be replaced by AI learning what he already knows.

> Yes, everyone starts out creative. Are there studies done on this or is this just wishful thinking?

I have never met an uncreative kid, and studies show kids tend to be more open and creative. But I have to admit I haven't met and interacted with that many average kids, so there maybe some that aren't creative, but a majority are.

Re: AI (2014)

#58

Post by Alan_Writer »

"If we never figure out how to make computers creative, then there will be a very natural division of labor between man and machine."

Even if AI can't reach (yet) the creativity level, it performs well while trying, at least for now. Who knows in the near future? So far, the roadmap is clear.

The AI push is causing major layoffs in the tech and crypto industries nowadays. But we have been receiving the message "adapt or pay the consequences." Right now, even management positions are being replaced by software. It could sound rude, but it's also part of human nature and evolution. We have created these machines, and now we have to deal with them.

On the other hand, it could be rare at these stages, but we (regular human beings) barely know how the brain really works. And AI has demonstrated, at some point, that it can work very well in some roles (mostly operational, ofc), but it's also turning indispensable. Even governments like the Abu Dhabi one are pushing to rule the emirate fully by AI.

So yeah, even if we don't like it, AI is silently replacing humans. The best you can do is to learn how to leverage and not be left behind.

Re: AI (2014)

#59

Post by aleph_minus_one »

ugtr3 wrote: post #50
aleph_minus_one wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well was Jobs a "doer"? Jobs' talent was that he was an incredibly talented salesman.

Why do people write such nonsense? Jobs envisioned the iPad and iPhone. Did he do the physical work? No. But he created direction. Everyone around him at that time has commented on this. Are you going to claim they’re all lying?

> Jobs envisioned the iPad and iPhone. [...] Everyone around him at that time has commented on this. Are you going to claim they’re all lying?

I don't claim that they are all lying, but I do claim that quite some people fell for Apple's marketing (as I wrote: "Jobs' talent was that he was an incredibly talented salesman.").

Re: AI (2014)

#60

Post by oytis »

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #35
jack_pp wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well was Jobs a "doer"? Did he get his hands dirty on the code? Or did he use his employees how we would like to use LLMs?

> Well was Jobs a "doer"? Jobs' talent was that he was an incredibly talented salesman.

Salespeople sell things that already exist. If you can envision new things that would sell well, that's a bit more than sales talent
Post reply on HN