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

LLM Inevitabilism

tomrenner.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 1001 posts

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#611

Post by 827a »

alonsonic wrote: post #505
lsy wrote: post #63

I think two things can be true simultaneously: 1. LLMs are a new technology and it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle with that. It's difficult to imagine a future where they don't continue to exist in some form, with all the timesaving benefits and social issues that come with them. 2. Almost three years in, companies investing in LLMs have not yet discovered a business model that justifies the massive expen…

I'm confused with your second point. LLM companies are not making any money from current models? Openai generates 10b USD ARR and has 100M MAUs. Yes they are running at a loss right now but that's because they are racing to improve models. If they stopped today to focus on optimization of their current models to minimize operating cost and monetizing their massive user base you think they don't have a successful busi…

One thing we're seeing in the software engineering agent space right now is how many people are angry with Cursor [1], and now Claude Code [2] (just picked a couple examples; you can browse around these subreddits and see tons of complaints).

What's happening here is pretty clear to me: Its a form of enshittification. These companies are struggling to find a price point that supports both broad market adoption ($20? $30?) and the intelligence/scale to deliver good results ($200? $300?). So, they're nerfing cheap plans, prioritizing expensive ones, and pissing off customers in the process. Cursor even had to apologize for it [3].

There's a broad sense in the LLM industry right now that if we can't get to "it" (AGI, etc) by the end of this decade, it won't happen during this "AI Summer". The reason for that is two-fold: Intelligence scaling is logarithmic w.r.t compute. We simply cannot scale compute quick enough. And, interest in funding to pay for that exponential compute need will dry up, and previous super-cycles tell us that will happen on the order of ~5 years.

So here's my thesis: We have a deadline that even evangelists agree is a deadline. I would argue that we're further along in this supercycle than many people realize, because these companies have already reached the early enshitification phase for some niche use-cases (software development). We're also seeing Grok 4 Heavy release with a 50% price increase ($300/mo) yet offer single-digit percent improvement in capability. This is hallmark enshitification.

Enshitification is the final, terminal phase of hyperscale technology companies. Companies remain in that phase potentially forever, but its not a phase where significant research, innovation, and optimization can happen; instead, it is a phase of extraction. AI hyperscalers genuinely speedran this cycle thanks to their incredible funding and costs; but they're now showcasing very early signals of enshitifications.

(Google might actually escape this enshitification supercycle, to be clear, and that's why I'm so bullish on them and them alone. Their deep, multi-decade investment into TPUs, Cloud Infra, and high margin product deployments of AI might help them escape it).

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/cursor/comments/1m0i6o3/cursor_qual...

[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1lzuy0j/claude_co...

[3] https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/07/cursor-apologizes-for-uncl...

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#612

Post by JimmaDaRustla »

jdiff wrote: post #568
JimmaDaRustla wrote: post #556

The author seems to imply that the "framing" of an argument is done so in bad faith in order to win an argument but only provides one-line quotes where there is no contextual argument. This tactic by the author is a straw-man argument - he's framing the position of tech leaders and our acceptance of it as the reason AI exists, instead of being honest, which is that they were simply right in their predictions: AI was…

The IT industry is also full of salesmen and con men, both enjoy unrealistic exaggeration. Your statements would not be out of place 20 years ago when the iPhone dropped. Your statements would not be out of place 3 years ago before every NFT went to 0. LLMs could hit an unsolvably hard wall next year and settle into a niche of utility. AI could solve a lengthy list of outstanding architectural and technical problems…

> I can't find a single open source codebase, actively used in production, and primarily maintained and developed with AI.

As I stated, you haven't been paying attention.

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#613

Post by [deleted] »

JimmaDaRustla wrote: post #612
jdiff wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The IT industry is also full of salesmen and con men, both enjoy unrealistic exaggeration. Your statements would not be out of place 20 years ago when the iPhone dropped. Your statements would not be out of place 3 years ago before every NFT went to 0. LLMs could hit an unsolvably hard wall next year and settle into a niche of utility. AI could solve a lengthy list of outstanding architectural and technical problems…

> I can't find a single open source codebase, actively used in production, and primarily maintained and developed with AI. As I stated, you haven't been paying attention.

[deleted]

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#614

Post by dmix »

lsy wrote: post #63

I think two things can be true simultaneously: 1. LLMs are a new technology and it's hard to put the genie back in the bottle with that. It's difficult to imagine a future where they don't continue to exist in some form, with all the timesaving benefits and social issues that come with them. 2. Almost three years in, companies investing in LLMs have not yet discovered a business model that justifies the massive expen…

> model capabilities are plateauing at a level where most people agree that the output is trite and unpleasant to consume.

What are you basing this on? Personal feelings?

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#615

Post by belter »

JimmaDaRustla wrote: post #612
jdiff wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The IT industry is also full of salesmen and con men, both enjoy unrealistic exaggeration. Your statements would not be out of place 20 years ago when the iPhone dropped. Your statements would not be out of place 3 years ago before every NFT went to 0. LLMs could hit an unsolvably hard wall next year and settle into a niche of utility. AI could solve a lengthy list of outstanding architectural and technical problems…

> I can't find a single open source codebase, actively used in production, and primarily maintained and developed with AI. As I stated, you haven't been paying attention.

At least we know you are human, since you are gaslighting us instead of citing a random link, that leads to a 404 page. An LLM would have confidently hallucinated a broken reference by now.

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#616

Post by 1970-01-01 »

mmaunder wrote: post #584

You can't put an idea as compelling as AI back in the bottle. Once the knowledge of how to build a model, and what the reward is, permeated society, it became an inevitability. Protest all you want and frame it as a choice if you'd like, but the 8 billion people on this planet will simply go around you, much like the sick little boy that the zombies bypassed in World War Z. We've seen this with hand tools, the wheel,…

That's positivity hubris. LLMs are as dangerous as they are helpful to society. An AI bottle will be manufactured and then taxed. Society will end up banning it for general use. Just as you can't build and carry a firearm, drive a car, fly an airplane, sell food, or even be prescribed medicine without a license, you will not be able to enjoy unlimited AI without a yearly 'license to LLM' and the appropriate and correct tax forms.

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#617

Post by recursive »

mlsu wrote: post #35
HPsquared wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just remember that machines already do most of the work. Nobody ploughs fields anymore.

Yes, of course. What is AI freeing us of? Communicating with other human beings? Ah what a chore. Other human beings. Wish I could just enter into a cocoon of solitude for the rest of my life. I mean I'm kind of being glib here but the ~amazing future~ we all seem to take as inevitable has me playing solo orchestra conductor, prompt pupettering a massive fleet of hyper intelligent code bots, prompting an AI to make p…

This is the setup for the matrix.

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#618

Post by cwoolfe »

From an anthropological standpoint, consider that most every human culture in across time and space has people who play the role of the prophet. They tell us of the future. We are no different.

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#619

Post by mcherm »

JimmaDaRustla wrote: post #612
jdiff wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The IT industry is also full of salesmen and con men, both enjoy unrealistic exaggeration. Your statements would not be out of place 20 years ago when the iPhone dropped. Your statements would not be out of place 3 years ago before every NFT went to 0. LLMs could hit an unsolvably hard wall next year and settle into a niche of utility. AI could solve a lengthy list of outstanding architectural and technical problems…

> I can't find a single open source codebase, actively used in production, and primarily maintained and developed with AI. As I stated, you haven't been paying attention.

A better-faith response would be to point out an example of such an open source codebase OR tell why that specific set of restrictions (open-source, active production, primarily AI) is unrealistic.

For instance, one might point out that the tools for really GOOD AI code authoring have only been available for about 6 months so it is unreasonable to expect that a new project built primarily using such tools has already reached the level of maturity to be relied on in production.

Re: LLM Inevitabilism

#620

Post by gspencley »

evantbyrne wrote: post #543
keiferski wrote: post #107

One of the negative consequences of the “modern secular age” is that many very intelligent, thoughtful people feel justified in brushing away millennia of philosophical and religious thought because they deem it outdated or no longer relevant. (The book A Secular Age is a great read on this, btw, I think I’ve recommended it here on HN at least half a dozen times.) And so a result of this is that they fail to notice t…

I'm pretty bearish on the idea that AGI is going to take off anytime soon, but I read a significant amount of theology growing up and I would not describe the popular essays from e.g., LessWrong as religious in nature. I also would not describe them as appearing poorly read. The whole "look they just have a new god!" is a common trope in religious apologetics that is usually just meant to distract from the author's o…

Philosophy and religion are not mutually inclusive, though one can certainly describe a religious belief as being a philosophical belief.

Even a scientifically inclined atheist has philosophical ideas grounding their world view. The idea that the universe exists as an objective absolute with immutable laws of nature is a metaphysical idea. The idea that nature can be observed and that reason is a valid tool for acquiring knowledge about nature is an epistemological idea. Ethics is another field of philosophy and it would be a mistake to assume a universal system of ethics that has been constant throughout all cultures across all of human history.

So while I certainly agree that there is a very common hand-wave of "look the atheists have just replaced God with a new 'god' by a different name", you don't have to focus on religion, theology and faith based belief systems to identify different categories of philosophical ideas and how they have shaped different cultures, their beliefs and behaviours throughout history.

A student of philosophy would identify the concept of "my truth" as being an idea put forward by Emmanuel Kant, for example, even though the person saying that doesn't know that that's the root of the idea that reality is subjective. Similarly, the empirically grounded scientist would be recognized as following in the footsteps of Aristotle. The pious bible thumper parroting ideas published by Plato.

The point is that philosophy is not the same thing as religion and philosophy directly shapes how people think, what they believe and therefore how they act and behave. And it's kind of uncanny how an understanding of philosophy can place historical events in context and what kinds of predictive capabilities it has when it comes to human behaviour in the aggregate.

Post reply on HN