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

Generative AI Is an Engineering Disaster

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 97 posts

Re: Generative AI Is an Engineering Disaster

#61

Post by JackSlateur »

scotty79 wrote: post #37
nancyminusone wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can. AI says it will solve all problems, like curing cancer. Suppose it does. Now there are no more problems and no reason to run the AIs, at which time computing energy will fall rapidly. The alternative is that there will always be problems, and we could spend as much as possible trying to compute solutions, but they will not be found.

> Now there are no more problems and no reason to run the AIs, Are you sure we are talking about the same species?

Creating fake problems is not a caracteristic I would give to "a successful civilization" :)

Re: Generative AI Is an Engineering Disaster

#62

Post by neonstatic »

xg15 wrote: post #41
neonstatic wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ultra wealthy will out compete you for the resources you need if we don’t start taxing them has been a discussion from the left for quite some time. Europe has done this and look how advanced it is! While Americans talk to computers, we have flying cars, colonies on Mars, and even a cure for cancer. We just had the courage to go forward with that one socialist trick and look how it all worked out so wonderfully…

I mean, we do have affordable healthcare and usable trains (in some countries)...

I will never understand this fixation on trains. I will take a plane over a train any time. Not only is it faster and more convenient, it's also much safer.

As for healthcare, it depends on the country. I am European and I haven't used public healthcare in my entire adult life because 1) It f***g sucks 2) the waiting lists are so long you might die before you get treated 3) the bedside manner is so awful I'd rather be roasted by a stand up comedian

Re: Generative AI Is an Engineering Disaster

#63

Post by satvikpendem »

dofm wrote: post #58
satvikpendem wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

India and Nigeria made many economic mistakes. My comparison is China and Vietnam who reduced poverty manifold in a single generation.

So as long as nobody makes major economic mistakes it's fine?

Yes? Of course making mistakes in any system leads to ruin.

Re: Generative AI Is an Engineering Disaster

#64

Post by satvikpendem »

dofm wrote: post #57
satvikpendem wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China did it in a generation. It is not like it was before, we have the economic tools and knowledge to accelerate it.

1978 is two generations ago, really, and things are not better for everyone now. Working days are long, six days a week, pay is poor enough that people are living in dormitories or company housing, effectively indentured still. And the question with the AI thing is: when you take some chunk of labour out of the employment market entirely (such is the promise of AI across all sectors — hire fewer people), where will t…

That's true, but any system has issues, there is no silver bullet. And yes, with the rate AI is going, among others, it is something someone will have to fix, I don't see what the alternative of not fixing it would look like.

Re: Generative AI Is an Engineering Disaster

#65

Post by xg15 »

neonstatic wrote: post #62
xg15 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, we do have affordable healthcare and usable trains (in some countries)...

I will never understand this fixation on trains. I will take a plane over a train any time. Not only is it faster and more convenient, it's also much safer. As for healthcare, it depends on the country. I am European and I haven't used public healthcare in my entire adult life because 1) It f***g sucks 2) the waiting lists are so long you might die before you get treated 3) the bedside manner is so awful I'd rather b…

I never got the logic of "I don't like this thing, so why does it exist?"

Others might not have a choice than to take the train or use public healthcare (or maybe you or me too, depending on how life turns out), and for that I'm glad they are of decent quality.

Then there are the CO2 emissions of planes, but that's another topic...

Re: Generative AI Is an Engineering Disaster

#66

Post by doctorwho42 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #19
watwut wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They create value for many people, which is why they've been adopted so quickly. A lot of that adoption is completely useless crap tho. Like ai in vacuum cleaner that ads absolutely nothing useful to anything. AI buttons intentionally at places I randomly click at, so that I am forced to open it. Google search that defaults to ai, so that we have to use it after then nerfed real search. There are useful usages of L…

Which happens for every new technology. Blue LED's in everything, capacitive buttons on everything, car buttons replaced with ipads, et cetera. Some of the random placements will prove out useful but most won't and will disappear.

Yes, but corporations didn't bet the Capex of the entire GDP of the world on it

Re: Generative AI Is an Engineering Disaster

#67

Post by neonstatic »

xg15 wrote: post #65
neonstatic wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will never understand this fixation on trains. I will take a plane over a train any time. Not only is it faster and more convenient, it's also much safer. As for healthcare, it depends on the country. I am European and I haven't used public healthcare in my entire adult life because 1) It f***g sucks 2) the waiting lists are so long you might die before you get treated 3) the bedside manner is so awful I'd rather b…

I never got the logic of "I don't like this thing, so why does it exist?" Others might not have a choice than to take the train or use public healthcare (or maybe you or me too, depending on how life turns out), and for that I'm glad they are of decent quality. Then there are the CO2 emissions of planes, but that's another topic...

> I never got the logic of "I don't like this thing, so why does it exist?"

Nice straw man. I never said trains should not exist. I was merely talking about the fixation on trains, which is palpable in Europe.

Re: Generative AI Is an Engineering Disaster

#68

Post by scotty79 »

JackSlateur wrote: post #61
scotty79 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now there are no more problems and no reason to run the AIs, Are you sure we are talking about the same species?

Creating fake problems is not a caracteristic I would give to "a successful civilization" :)

Each solution generates new problems. That's the general physics of intelligence in our universe. Also label of "fake" is completely arbitrary. Because someone might call cancer a fake problem, because people shouldn't live too long and they need a reason to die.

Re: Generative AI Is an Engineering Disaster

#69

Post by watwut »

satvikpendem wrote: post #55
watwut wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> disrupt an industry that desperately needs it. Why is the primary tech people impulse to disrupt, destroy and harm other industries? Maybe that is why we dont produce useful tech anymore. The primary impulse is always hostile, rarely something like "lets create and sell a useful thing for them". > adopt emerging technology when it comes into play (like for example when the Internet came into play) and use it to sta…

Sometimes the other industries are just bad, like Uber for taxis or Airbnb for hotels. Now the disrupted industries have gotten somewhat better but only due to competition. And disruption doesn't always mean destruction, it's just a word that is used, not to necessarily be taken literally.

Hotels did not got better. They are about the same. Uber sold rides under pruce for years and then pushed expensis on deivers.

In my city, Uber is just like any other taxi company.

>;And disruption doesn't always mean destruction, it's just a word that is used, not to necessarily be taken literally.

It means exactly that tho. When tech people talk about disruption, they dont talk about creating better products, they are not interested in what the rest of the world needs or want. When tech people talk about disruption, focus is alwas on, well, disruption as a goal on itself.

It is never mutual prosperity vision, it is about using VC money to create monopoly and then raising prices to milk the situation to the max.

We dont even see articles about how to make more useful products on HN. Nor about how to solve real world problems. We, as a culture, just dont do that.

Re: Generative AI Is an Engineering Disaster

#70

Post by try_the_bass »

blinkbat wrote: post #13
throwaway323929 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of just rejecting the future like a Roman fatalist because you've decided that it's just going to be someone else controlling you, maybe a better plan is to adopt emerging technology when it comes into play (like for example when the Internet came into play) and use it to start your own company, or make yourself more productive, or disrupt an industry that desperately needs it. I shouldn't have to explain the…

it's really funny when people advise the fix for widespread sociological problems as "just become an entrepreneur and disrupt an industry bro"

I mean, that is the essence of how to fix the problems in a capitalist society?

One of the core tenets of capitalism is that one person's profits are another person's opportunity. If the latter can do the work/obtain the capital to break into the industry, they can capture some of those profits by offering competition at a lower price point.

I don't think the person you're bagging on is saying it's easy to do; but they are saying that if people feel strongly about changing something, perhaps they should try doing it themselves, instead of just complaining about it and wishing someone else (i.e. government) will fix it for them

Post reply on HN