This is strawmaning the article
It Still Can't Do My Job: Four Years of Moving Goalposts (2022–2026)
61–70 of 143 posts
Re: It Still Can't Do My Job: Four Years of Moving Goalposts (2022–2026)
#62I like that this goofy fear-based boosterism is on the front page at the same time as an actually well reasoned and well written article about how fear-based boosterism has actually harmed the AI industry instead of making everyone panic-buy like they intended. I assume that’s entirely due to not being able to downvote submissions on HN. As for the article, as another user put it: > Call me when it stops making thing…
The AI boosterism is really weird. What is the big deal? My job is not to make AI succeed, it's too solve problems for our clients. Yet I'm getting told I need to use AI to do my job or my funding is going to get cut. We've done several research spikes to figure out where AI can fit into our project and apparently coming up with the answer of, "nowhere near the classified data" that means we must not have AI'd hard e…
So I do a lot of client work for F100s and I’ve got some good news and bad.
The bad news is it’s already in the C Suite and they (were) pushing it hard.
The good news is that since Copilot and others have started to charge based on usage a lot of those same leaders have hit the brakes and are now wanting detailed information and usage reporting to figure out where AI actually fits in.
Some have gone even further and slapped a usage limit on individuals or teams and left it at that.
Sanity is around the corner. At least until the next big thing :)
Re: It Still Can't Do My Job: Four Years of Moving Goalposts (2022–2026)
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
? in a professional setting, my coworkers are just randomly gonna make stuff up
That is the entire industry of business consulting. Boston consulting group Bain and MacKenzie make billions of years completely making shit up. same thing with Ernst and young and any of these organizations that make these “future of (insert market)” reports
right, so none of my human coworkers ever
Re: It Still Can't Do My Job: Four Years of Moving Goalposts (2022–2026)
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. I don't think they're mutually exclusive. You can have something smarter than you which you use as a tool. My point was that there's nothing objectively special about our level of intelligence, so it shouldn't be used as a benchmark.
> You can have something smarter than you which you use as a tool. That sounds like how tech CEO's treat their employees! Kidding aside, I think the notion that you could control something (legitimately) smarter than you is a pretty risky proposition. (Fortunately one that I think is actually far off)
> I think the notion that you could control something (legitimately) smarter than you is a pretty risky proposition.
But then think about the CEOs and their employees again.
We just need to invent something like money for an "AI" and then we can lead in on a stick ;-)
Re: It Still Can't Do My Job: Four Years of Moving Goalposts (2022–2026)
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s your definition of AGI?
AGI is when an AI model can pass the Turing test. It was achieved with GPT-2.
ELIZA could pass the Turing Test and is over 50 years older than GPT2. You are claiming we have had AGI available since before the first version of Unix came out?
Re: It Still Can't Do My Job: Four Years of Moving Goalposts (2022–2026)
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m unaware of any humans that don’t have this error method also.
This argument style is always humorous. The intention is something like “so humans are as bad as AI” when the original question boils down to something like “why would I replace humans with AI?”.
> The intention is something like “so humans are as bad as AI” when the original question boils down to something like “why would I replace humans with AI?”
If AI really is at human level quality/error rate (I don't think it is for general tasks, but there are some areas where it is), then the answer is typically cost and speed/capacity.
Re: It Still Can't Do My Job: Four Years of Moving Goalposts (2022–2026)
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don’t know me, but I am in the tech industry and believe AGI will never happen. Albeit that is because I did a BSc in psychology where I developed a deep distrust for intelligence research and concluded that intelligence is not a useful term in philosophy nor science (and especially not in engineering).
What’s your definition of AGI?
Strong AGI would be a system capable of terraforming a planet without any external intervention.
I mean, we did it and there have been roughly 117 billion human beings with GI in all of existence.
Re: It Still Can't Do My Job: Four Years of Moving Goalposts (2022–2026)
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m unaware of any humans that don’t have this error method also.
I am unaware of any healthy human who confabulates things as arbitrarily and disastrously as a SOTA reasoning model. It is childish to say stuff like "lawyers always made up court cases" - no they didn't!
[deleted]
Re: It Still Can't Do My Job: Four Years of Moving Goalposts (2022–2026)
#69Man the one-shot game that is genuinely good in 2027 is crazy. A good game typically takes around 3-8 years of development by multiple skilled people. Maybe 3 years or so for 1 guy that's super dedicated.
Right now single prompt with Fable can get us a small protype of like 1 game mechanic that's not even remotely production ready. So this guy thinks it'll 100,000X in a year.
AI boosters are something else.
Re: It Still Can't Do My Job: Four Years of Moving Goalposts (2022–2026)
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
This argument style is always humorous. The intention is something like “so humans are as bad as AI” when the original question boils down to something like “why would I replace humans with AI?”.
> The intention is something like “so humans are as bad as AI” when the original question boils down to something like “why would I replace humans with AI?” If AI really is at human level quality/error rate (I don't think it is for general tasks, but there are some areas where it is), then the answer is typically cost and speed/capacity.
Have outputs from engineers traditionally been measured in cost and speed?
Remember, we aren’t just talking about the product you create. While you would measure deliverables by cost and speed are we ignoring something else? Something that could potentially be more important than either of those metrics?