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

The (real) dead economy theory

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 69 posts

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#51

Post by yorwba »

lionheart wrote: post #43
koe123 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, what your saying is that there is a perhaps linear, perhaps exponential increase, and that you are projecting that increase forward indefinitely. Let me know if this is unfair. Counter argument: does anything else work this way? E.g. Moores law had an end too right? I would argue that the core tech breakthrough (Transformer-based LLM) has been improved, but no fundamental further innovation seems to have been mad…

Not indefinitely but at least to the point where they’re smarter than humans.

The singularity usually refers to the idea that although the rate of relative improvement of a technology is approximately constant at a constant (human) intelligence level ([dy/dt]/y ≈ c), producing exponential growth, if said constant were actually proportional to intelligence and the technology under improvement being intelligence itself ([dy/dt]/y ≈ cy), then solving the differential equation leads to a blow-up to infinity in finite time, a mathematical singularity.

If instead additional intelligence does little to speed up AI development (due to the need for other inputs like caputal and time), you could get a world where AI becomes better than humans at AI development and begins a cycle of recursive self-improvement without explosive growth leading to a singularity.

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#52

Post by inigyou »

lionheart wrote: post #42
inigyou wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the tools makes you think we've hit the singularity? My experience with them is that they've memorized a lot of stuff, but can't make anything fundamentally new. Most of the useful things LLMs do amounts to semantic search.

They’re discovering previously unknown mathematical theorems. How is that not new?

They're finding new examples in well-known categories of stuff. Also proving is a question of search. They're finding some stuff we missed, but not because they're smart, just because they have lots of data and compute. Think of them as something closer to brute force.

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#53

Post by ZionBoggan »

ggm wrote: post #17
ZionBoggan wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously no...? The implications far outweigh the "money sink" notion...

Obviously yes. On evidence alone the path to profit doesn't exist for most of the massive capital sinks. A small number of players At best MAY return on investment, but in the cycle time capital needs a return, most are functionally incapable AGI isn't happening. So, it's incremental improvements on LLM and Generative methods. Any advance which requires more tech inputs demands more capital. Any advance which require…

[flagged]

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#54

Post by FeloniousHam »

inigyou wrote: post #52
lionheart wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re discovering previously unknown mathematical theorems. How is that not new?

They're finding new examples in well-known categories of stuff. Also proving is a question of search. They're finding some stuff we missed, but not because they're smart, just because they have lots of data and compute. Think of them as something closer to brute force.

What astonishes me about singularity skepticism: every argument was, from when it was released, "but it can't do X", "it's impossible/too expensive". The benefits AI -> AGI are staggering, the competition is intense (both intra-industry and internationally), and the gains self-reinforcing.

I have fears of dystopian worst-case scenarios, and dread the rapid pace of change and what it will do to real lives lived in the world, but it's only clanker cope/wishcasting that believes that (AI+human ingenuity) won't produce real AI ingenuity.

Re-read your comment in four years, I'll take the bet you'll find it very naive.

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#55

Post by fuzzfactor »

inigyou wrote: post #52
lionheart wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re discovering previously unknown mathematical theorems. How is that not new?

They're finding new examples in well-known categories of stuff. Also proving is a question of search. They're finding some stuff we missed, but not because they're smart, just because they have lots of data and compute. Think of them as something closer to brute force.

>Think of them as something closer to brute force.

Well brute force is something I had waited for all my life so it could make a personal computing experience higher performance and more fulfilling.

By the time 1980 rolled around.

In some ways it's like a fundamental assumption that's always been there and nobody questions or really "thinks" about. It hurts the brain, sooner or later you want a computer to be able to do some thinking for you ;)

It's one of the easiest tech concepts to understand, especially for those who don't have very deep abilities.

Hardware is hardware, stronger is stronger, and quantity has its own qualities.

People in certain positions can go farther with nothing more than this firm a grasp of computer science or intelligence and it shows.

The only thing to be gained by continuing to grow the scale of "datacenters" from this point is the brutishness.

I expect it to pay off too, for those who can afford it, just not for everybody.

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#56

Post by fuzzfactor »

yorwba wrote: post #51
lionheart wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not indefinitely but at least to the point where they’re smarter than humans.

The singularity usually refers to the idea that although the rate of relative improvement of a technology is approximately constant at a constant (human) intelligence level ([dy/dt]/y ≈ c), producing exponential growth, if said constant were actually proportional to intelligence and the technology under improvement being intelligence itself ([dy/dt]/y ≈ cy), then solving the differential equation leads to a blow-up t…

That's a pretty good concept and you could say there is a fairly wide gap between your everyday singularity and the ultimate singularity.

Which seems to me likely the result of an unforeseen variable or variables, and that's got to have outsized, uncharacterized, and unexpected importance to have such a strong effect.

When the overwhelming consensus is that wonderful things are waiting just around the corner, it still could turn out to be just the opposite and you'll never know until you actually turn the corner.

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#57

Post by Grombobulous »

Schiendelman wrote: post #49
Grombobulous wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I share your feeling that LLM-based AI is a high-potential technology. The issue is the objective dollars and cents financials of the situation. It’s literally the technology that is the money-losingest at this time. The commercial utility of the technology can’t become viable just by being really useful. There’s a good accounting argument to be made for AI IPOs happening out of a serious need for capital. I wouldn’t…

The economy gets bigger every year. Therefore, any similarly proportioned large "thing" becomes the largest of all time. Uber lost tons of money for years, I remember the complaints about them. Investors made lots of money because they believe in future value. You're not being forced to make that bet - "money losing" is great for us if we aren't invested!

IPO investors in Uber didn’t actually make a lot of money. The stock has only gone up by around 7% per year since going public. I can make over 4% guaranteed by putting the money into a CD.

Ironically, we are being forced to make that bet, thanks to NASDAQ’s new indexing rule changes made just for SpaceX.

I think what you’re describing is essentially a form of “inflate away the debt.”

Sure, if we wait enough decades SpaceX will be legitimately worth trillions of dollars.

Uber looks like a little baby loss leader compared to AI companies.

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#58

Post by S_Bear »

koe123 wrote: post #30
lionheart wrote: post #7

I just don't get it. How do you go from writing the kinds of future visions he has to staring at the singularity practically hitting you in the face and calling it "the world's money-losingest technology"? Is it because he isn't actually using the technology for work on a day-to-day basis like a lot of us?

> singularity I just cant get over this term, do you honestly believe in this? I use AI daily and while it is super useful I see too many limitations for it to “recursively improve and cause an intelligence explosion”. 1. Clearly, the people selling AI with this idea benefit greatly with this promise of infinite upside. Can you can trust them? 2. Singularity essentially requires to handwave away a lot of baked-in iss…

The best part of the Singularity is that, once everyone who wants to uploads their consciousness to a computer does so, we mortal humans can simply unplug it and go on about our lives.

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#59

Post by RetroTechie »

lionheart wrote: post #7

I just don't get it. How do you go from writing the kinds of future visions he has to staring at the singularity practically hitting you in the face and calling it "the world's money-losingest technology"? Is it because he isn't actually using the technology for work on a day-to-day basis like a lot of us?

It used to be that society always took some time (read: decades or generations) to absorb new technology. To percolate into various niches, people understanding how it works & how to use, its limits/drawbacks, getting used to its effects, etc. Even mass-production machinery takes time to build.

Modern AI has taken those brakes off. Humans are taken out of the loop. IT infrastructure that modern society leans so heavily on, could be overhauled overnight into a very different beast. We wouldn't know what's happening before it hit us.

If anything, society should be reluctant to give AI powered systems 'hands & feet'. Use systems offline where possible. But we don't. Maybe some "Morris worm of the AI age" will get us to pay attention.

Whatever is coming, if it's bad we probably deserve it.

Re: The (real) dead economy theory

#60

Post by projektfu »

projektfu wrote: post #22
lukol wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"money-losingest" -> AI already brings in billions and many AI companies could become profitable in little time if they'd stop R&D and simply keep selling what they already have. yes, it's risky and investment-heavy but it's not a bottomless pit with no path to break even. there are many other recent technologies - NFTs? data centers in space? - that would be a better fit for this label.

Is that true? If Anthropic stopped last November at versions 4.5, would people keep using it enough to recoup the investment?

I think I posted this under the wrong comment.
Post reply on HN