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

AI is different

antirez.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 920 posts

Re: AI is different

#611

Post by c0balt »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #371
ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI has already rendered academic take-home assignments moot Not really, there are plenty of things that LLMs cannot do that a professor could make his students do. It is just a asymmetric attack on the professor's (or whomever is grading) time to do that. IMO, credentials shouldn't be given to those who test or submit assignments without proctoring (a lot of schools allow this).

> Not really, there are plenty of things that LLMs cannot do that a professor could make his students do. Could you offer some examples? I'm having a hard time thinking of what could be at the intersection of "hard enough for SotA LLMs" yet "easy enough for students (who are still learning, not experts in their fields, etc)".

Present the results of your exercises (in person) in front of someone. Or really anything in person.

A big downer on the online/remote Initiatives for learning but actually an advantage for older Unis that already have existing physical facilities for students.

This does however also have some problems similar to code interviews .

Re: AI is different

#612

Post by griffzhowl »

dongping wrote: post #413
schneems wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few months ago I saw one driverless car maybe every three days. Now I see roughly 3-5 every day. I get that it’s taken a long time and a lot of hype that hasn’t panned out. But once the tech works and it’s just about juicing the scale then things shift rapidly. Even if you think “oh that’s the next generation’s problem” if there is a chance you’re wrong, or if you want to be kind to the next generation: now is the…

The robotaxi business model is the total opposite of scaling. At my previous employer we were solving the problem "block by block, city by city", , and I can only assume that you are living in the right city/block where they are tackling.

That just sounds like scaling slowly, rather than not scaling

Re: AI is different

#613

Post by anonandwhistle »

omnimus wrote: post #209
andrei_says_ wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure how exactly politicians will jump from “minimal wages don’t have to be livable wages” and “people who are able to work should absolutely not have access to free healthcare” and “any tax-supported benefits are actually undeserved entitlements and should be eliminated” to “everyone deserves a universal basic income”.

I wouldn't underestimate what can happen if 1/3 of your workforce is displaced and put aside with nothing to do. People are usually obedient because they have something in life and they are very busy with work. So they don't have time or headspace to really care about politics. When suddenly big numbers of people start to more care about politics it leads to organizing and all kinds of political changes. What i mean…

This is why Palantir and others exist to stop masses.It´s been only tested but it will only grow from there and stop millions of people. SV you built this

Re: AI is different

#614

Post by willguest »

DrewADesign wrote: post #501
willguest wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

economics being deeply imperfect doesn’t really change my point

Indeed, but I think it renders your point obsolete, since deeply imperfect resource allocation isn't really resource allocation at all, it is (in this case) resource accumulation.

Are you suggesting that compound interest serves to redistribute the wealth coming from extractive industries?

Re: AI is different

#615

Post by Sincere6066 »

m4nu3l wrote: post #595

>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 wou…

pretty sure the economic system has already failed all the tests

Re: AI is different

#616

Post by griffzhowl »

magicalist wrote: post #112
visarga wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the most sensible answer would be something like UBI. Having had the experience of living under communist regime prior to 1989 I have zero trust in the state providing support, while I am totally dependent and have no recourse. Instead I would rather rely on my own two hands like my grandparents did. I see a world where we can build anything we want with our own hands and AI automation. Jobs might become op…

> I see a world where we can build anything we want with our own hands and AI automation. Jobs might become optional. Unless your two hands are building murderbots, though, it doesn't matter what you're building if you can't grow or buy food. I haven't personally seen how UBI could end up working viably, but I also don't see any other system working without much more massive societal changes than anyone is talking ab…

> I also don't see any other system working without much more massive societal changes than anyone is talking about.

The other system is that the mass of people are coerced to work for tokens that buy them the right to food and to live in a house. i.e. the present system but potentially with more menial and arduous labour.

Hopefully we can think of something else

Re: AI is different

#617

Post by klabb3 »

mofeien wrote: post #342
chrisco255 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but which can be trained to the new job opportunities more easily than humans can What makes you think that? Self driving cars have had untold billions of dollars in reaearch and decades in applied testing, iteration, active monitoring, etc and it still has a very long tail of unaddressed issues. They've been known to ignore police traffic redirections, they've run right through construction barriers, and recently…

> What makes you think that? Self driving cars [...] AI is intentionally being developed to be able to make decisions in any domain humans work in. This is unlike any previous technology. The more apt analogy is to other species. When was the last time there was something other than homo sapiens that could carry on an interesting conversation with homo sapiens. 40,000 years? And this new thing has been in development…

> we don't know where the ceiling is.

The ceiling for current AI, while not provably known, can reasonably be upper bounded to human aggregate ability since these methods are limited to patterns in the training data. The big surprise was how many and sophisticated patterns were hiding in the training data (human written text). This current wave of AI progress is fueled by training data and compute in ”equal parts”. Since compute is cheaper, they’ve invested in more compute but failed scaling expectations since training data remained similarly sized.

Reaching super-intelligence through training data is paradoxical, because if it were known it wouldn’t be super-human. The other option is breaking out of the training data enclosure by relying on other methods. That may sound exciting but there’s no major progress I’m aware of that points that direction. It’s a little like being back to square one, before this hype cycle started. The smartest people seem to be focused on transformers, due to getting boatloads of money from companies or academia pushing them because of fomo.

Re: AI is different

#618

Post by azemetre »

kortilla wrote: post #606
iwontberude wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the bigger relief is that I know humans won’t put up with a two tiered system of haves and have nots forever and eventually we will get wealth redistribution. Government is the ultimate source of all wealth and organization, corporations are built on top of it and thus are subservient.

Governments are not the source of wealth. They are just a requisite component to allow people to create it and maintain it.

This doesn't pass the sniff test, governments generate wealth all the time. Public education, public healthcare, public research, public housing. These are all programs that generate an enormous amount of wealth and allow citizens to flourish.

Re: AI is different

#619

Post by anonandwhistle »

nerptastic wrote: post #601
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't underestimate how easily AI will suppress this through a combination of ultrasurveillance, psychological and emotional modelling, and personally targeted persuasion delivered by chatbot etc. If all else fails you can simply bomb city blocks into submission. Or arrange targeted drone decapitations of troublemakers. (Possibly literally.) The automation and personalisation of social and political control - an…

Speculating here, but I don't believe that the government would have the time or organization to do this. Widespread political unrest caused by job losses would be the first step. Almost as soon as there is some type of AI that can replace mass amounts of workers, people will be out on the streets - most people don't have 1-2 months of living expenses saved up. At that point, the government would realize that SHTF -…

That is a lot assumption right there. Starving masses can't logically and physically fight with AI or government for long. They become weak after weeks or months? At that point government would be smaller and controlled probably be part of AI owners.

IF they dont have 1-2 months of living expenses saved, they die. They can'be a big threat even in millions??? they dont have organization capacity or anything that matches

Post reply on HN