Earlier quoted context omitted.
Economics is essentially the study of resource allocation. We will have resources that will need to be allocated. I really doubt that AI will somehow neutralize the economies of scale in various realms that make centralized manufacturing necessary, let alone economics in general.
I so wish this were true, but unfortunately economics has a catch-all called "externalities" for anything that doesn't fit neatly into its implicit assessments of what value is. Pollution is tricky, so we push it outside the boundaries of value-estimation, along with any social nuance that we deem unquantifiable, and carry on as is everything is understood.
AI is different
501–510 of 920 posts
Re: AI is different
#502Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't have any more idea how to get to 1, 2, or 3, than we did 50 years ago. LLMs are cool, but they seem unlikely to do any of those things.
I encourage everyone to not claim “X seems unlikely” when it comes to high impact risks. Such a thinking pattern often leads to pruning one’s decision tree way too soon. To do well, we need to plan over an uncertain future that has many weird and unfamiliar scenarios.
Re: AI is different
#503Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any big AI release, some of the top comments are usually claiming either the tech itself is bad, relaying a specific anecdote about some AI model messing up or some study where AI isn't good, or claiming that AI is a huge bubble that will inevitably crash. I've seen the most emphatic denials of the utility of AI here go much farther than anywhere else where criticism of AI is mild skepticism. Among many people it is…
Coping mechanisms. AI is overhyped and useless and wouldn't ever improve, because the alternative is terrifying.
You could easily say that the AI hype is a cope as well. The tech industry and investors need there to be be a hot new technology, their career depends on it. There might be some truth to the coping in either direction but I feel you should try to ignore that and engage with the content of whatever the person is saying or we'll never make any progress.
Re: AI is different
#504There’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…
It isn't good, but that's not the reason. There's a paper about 10 years ago where people used some computer system to generate Bach-like music that even Bach experts couldn't reliably tell apart, but nobody listens to bot music. (or nobody except for engine programmers watches computer chess, despite superiority. Chess is thriving more now including commercially than it ever did)
In any creative field what people are after is the interaction between the creator and the content, which is why compelling personalities thrive more, not less in a sea of commodified slop (be that by AI or just churned out manually).
It's why we're in an age where twitch content creators or musicians are increasingly skilled at presenting themselves as authentic and personal. These people haven't suffered from the fact that mass production of media is cheap, they've benefited from it.
Re: AI is different
#505Earlier quoted context omitted.
Came here to say that. It’s important to remember how biased hacker news is in that regard. I’m just out of ten years in the safety critical market, and I can assure you that our clients are still a long way from being able to use those. I myself work in low level/runtime/compilers, and the output from AIs is often too erratic to be useful
>our clients are still a long way from being able to use those So it's simply a matter of time >often too erratic to be useful So sometimes it is useful.
Re: AI is different
#506Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, your opinion may be subject to selection bias (i.e., you are only judging the art that you became aware was AI generated).
Reminds me of the issue with bad CGI in movies. The only CGI you notice is the bad CGI, the good stuff just works. Same for AI generated art, you see the bad stuff but do not realize when you see a good one.
Re: AI is different
#507Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Book and music album covers are often done with AI These suck. Things made with AI just suck big time. Not only are they stupid but they have negative value on your product. I cannot think of single purely AI made video, song or any form of art that is any a good. All AI has done is falsely convince ppl that they can now create things that they had no skills to do before AI.
I mean, test after test have shown that the vast, vast majority of humans are woefully unable to distinguish good AI art made by SOTA models from human art, and in many/most cases actively prefer it. Maybe you’re a gentleman of such discerningly superior taste that you can always manage to identify the spark of human creativity that eludes the rest of us. Or maybe you’ve just told yourself you hate it and therefore y…
Re: AI is different
#508Regardless of their flaws, AI systems continue to impress with their ability to replicate certain human skills. Even if imperfect, such systems were a few years ago science fiction. It was not even clear that we were so near to create machines that could understand the human language, write programs, and find bugs in a complex code base: bugs that escaped the code review of a competent programmer.
Since LLMs and in general deep models are poorly understood, and even the most prominent experts in the field failed miserably again and again to modulate the expectations (with incredible errors on both sides: of reducing or magnifying what was near to come), it is hard to tell what will come next. But even before the Transformer architecture, we were seeing incredible progress for many years, and so far there is no clear sign that the future will not hold more. After all, a plateau of the current systems is possible and very credible, but it would likely stimulate, at this point, massive research efforts in the next step of architectures.
However, if AI avoids plateauing long enough to become significantly more useful and independent of humans, this revolution is going to be very unlike the past ones. Yet the economic markets are reacting as if they were governed by stochastic parrots. Their pattern matching wants that previous technologies booms created more business opportunities, so investors are polarized to think the same will happen with AI. But this is not the only possible outcome.
We are not there, yet, but if AI could replace a sizable amount of workers, the economic system will be put to a very hard test. Moreover, companies could be less willing to pay for services that their internal AIs can handle or build from scratch. Nor is it possible to imagine a system where a few mega companies are the only providers of intelligence: either AI will be eventually a commodity, or the governments would do something, in such an odd economic setup (a setup where a single industry completely dominates all the others).
The future may reduce the economic prosperity and push humanity to switch to some different economic system (maybe a better system). Markets don’t want to accept that, so far, and even if the economic forecasts are cloudy, wars are destabilizing the world, the AI timings are hard to guess, regardless of all that stocks continue to go up. But stocks are insignificant in the vast perspective of human history, and even systems that lasted a lot more than our current institutions eventually were eradicated by fundamental changes in the society and in the human knowledge. AI could be such a change.
Re: AI is different
#509Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans use only cameras. And humans don't even have true 360 coverage on those cameras. The bottleneck for self-driving technology isn't sensors - it's AI. Building a car that collects enough sensory data to enable self-driving is easy. Building a car AI that actually drives well in a diverse range of conditions is hard.
A fine argument in principle, but even if we talk only about vision, the human visual system is much more powerful than a camera. Between brightly sunlit snow and a starlit night, we can cover more than 45 stops with the same pair of eyeballs; the very best cinematographic cameras reach something like 16. In a way it's not a fair comparison, since we're taking into account retinal adaptation, eyelids/eyelashes, pupil…
Indeed. And the comparison is unnecessarily unfair.
You're comparing the dynamic range of a single exposure on a camera vs. the adaptive dynamic range in multiple environments for human eyes. Cameras do have comparable features: adjustable exposure times and apertures. Additionally cameras can also sense IR, which might be useful for driving in the dark.
Re: AI is different
#510Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
CGI is a good analogy because I think AI and creators will probably go in the same direction: You can make a compelling argument that CGI operators outcompeted practical effects operators. But CGI didn’t somehow replace the need for a filmmaker, scriptwriter, cinematographers, etc. entirely – it just changed the skillset. AI will probably be the same thing. It’s not going to replace the actual job of YouTuber in a me…