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

Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden

andyljones.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 663 posts

Re: Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden

#611

Post by pas »

glenstein wrote: post #432
pas wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

population projections they already predict that prosperity reduces population and even if AI becomes good enough to replace most humans the economic surplus does not disappear it's a coordination problem in many places on Earth social safety nets are pretty robust, and if AI helps to reduce cost of providing basic services then it won't be a problem to expand those safety nets ... there's already a pretty serious an…

I think the concerns with UBI are (1) it takes away the leverage of a labor force to organize and strike for better benefits or economic conditions, and (2) following the block grant model, can be a trojan horse "benefit" that sets the stage for effectively deleting systems of welfare support that have been historically resilient due to institutional support and being strongly identified with specific constituencies.…

In practice there are a few strong local unions (NY teachers, ILA (eastern longshoremen)), but in general it doesn't help those who are no employed. (Also when was the last general strike that achieved something ... other than getting general strikes outlawed?)

... also, one pretty practical problem with UBI is that cost of living varies wildly. And if it depends on location then people would register in a high-CoL place and live in a low-CoL place. (Which is what remote work already should be doing, but many companies are resistant to change.)

In theory it makes sense to have easy to administer targeted interventions, because then there's a lot of data (and "touch points" - ie. interaction with the people who actually get some benefit), so it's possible to do proper cost-benefit analyses.

Of course this doesn't work because allocation is over-overpoliticized, people want all kinds of means-testing and other hoops for people to jump through. (Like the classic prove you still have a disability and people with Type I diabetes few years have to get a fucking paper.)

So when it comes to any kind of safety net it should be as automatic as possible, but at least as targeted as negative income tax. UBI might fit depending on one's definition.

Re: Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden

#612

Post by palmotea »

DangitBobby wrote: post #601
palmotea wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the article is not written in any kind of cautionary humanitarian approach, but rather from perspective of some kind of economic determinism? Have you ever thought that you would be compared to a gasoline engine and everyone would discuss this juxtaposition from purely economic perspective? One of the many terrible things about software engineers their the tendency to think and speak as if they were some kind o…

I always thought intentionally applying an emotional distance was a strategy to help us see what's really happening, since allowing emotions to creep in causes us reach conclusions we want (motivated reasoning) instead of conclusions that reflect reality. I find it a valuable way to think. Then there's always the fact that the people who control the world have no emotional attachment to you either. They see you as so…

> I wish I knew what you were so I could say "one of the many terrible things about __" about you.

I'm a software engineer, so I beat you to it.

> I always thought intentionally applying an emotional distance was a strategy to help us see what's really happening, since allowing emotions to creep in causes us reach conclusions we want (motivated reasoning) instead of conclusions that reflect reality. I find it a valuable way to think.

And the problem is taking that too far, and doing it too much. It's a tactic "to help us see what's really happening," but it's wrong to stop there and forget things like values, interests, and morality.

> And people tend to vastly overvalue our "humanity" anyway.

WTF, man.

> I'm guessing the ones that displaced horses didn't give much of a fuck about what happened to horses.

Who cares what "the ones that displaced horses" thought? You're the horse in that scenario,and the horse cares. Another obnoxious software engineer problem is taking the wrong, often self-negating, perspective.

Yes, the robber who killed you to steal your stuff probably didn't mind you died. So I guess everything's good, then? No.

> Anyway, I think you have an unhealthy emotional attachment to your emotions.

Emotions aren't bad, they're healthy. But a rejection of them is probably a core screwed-up belief that leads to "aloof galaxy-brain, passively observing humanity from afar" syndrome.

There's probably parallel to the kind of obliviousness that gets you the behavior in the Torment Nexus meme ("Tech Company: "At long last, we have created the Torment Nexus from the classic sci-fi novel Don't Create The Torment Nexus.'") i.e. "Software Engineer: 'At long last, I've purged myself of emotion and become perfectly logical like Lt. Cmdr. Data from the classic sci-fi Logical Robot Data Wants to Be Human and Feel Emotions."

Re: Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden

#613

Post by Herring »

DangitBobby wrote: post #603
Herring wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American culture actively punishes compassion, then gaslights you about it. https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/te... Look at all the professions on the bottom right: Teachers, therapists, clergy, social workers, etc. It’s not a coincidence that cruel people take top positions.

Money isn't the only thing a job provides. Those are all professions that provide a sense of meaning, so monetary compensation doesn't need to be as high to attract and keep people.

Yeah that’s part of the gaslighting. It takes 2 seconds to realize it’s wrong, but people parrot it like Fox News talking points.

Every profession attracts people who enjoy it, eg lawyers tend to enjoy adversarial debate. Lots of countries don’t treat their teachers like shit. It’s a choice.

Re: Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden

#615

Post by haritha-j »

dredmorbius wrote: post #607
haritha-j wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capable yes, but human equivalence comes at different times, which means AI human equivalnce to humans in general will be staggered, and not a sudden cliff as the author claims. But in all fairness I don't imagine this to be a powerful critique, I wouldn't be at all shocked if I'm wrong.

The point of the article as I see it is that incremental improvements lead to sudden changes, when equivalence is reached in a specific domain . It's a bit like rising water in a lake or river. You're fine, until you aren't, though the specific "aren't" moment will depend on your elevation relative to the body of water, of the height of any protections (levees, dams, storm walls), and any mitigating mechanisms (e.g.,…

Yeah, I think that's fair. Although for more complex tasks done by humans it may be a bit more gradual in the sense that there's a lto of sub tasks plus this is much more probabilistic than car go faster than horse for cheaper.

Re: Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden

#616

Post by ben_w »

twodave wrote: post #537
ben_w wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. Even if LLMs made everyone 10x as productive, most companies will still have more work to do than resources to assign to those tasks. The only reason to reduce headcount is to remove people who already weren’t providing much value. They have more work to do until they don't. The number of bank tellers went up for a while after the invention of the ATM, but then it went down, because all the demand was saturated.…

I agree mostly, though personally I expect LLMs to basically give me whitewashing. They don't innovate. They don't push back enough or take a step back to reset the conversation. They can't even remember something I told them not to do 2 messages ago unless I twist their arm. This is what they are, as a technology. They'll get better. I think there's some impact associated with this, but it's not a doomsday scenario…

Yup, I think that's fair.

I'm not sure how many humans know how to be genuinely innovative; nor if it's learnable; and also, assuming that it is learnable, whether or not known ML is sample-efficient enough learn that skill from however many examples currently exist.

As you say, we don't understand what we're trying to build. It's remarkable how far we got without understanding what we build: for all that "cargo cult" is seen as a negative in the 20th century onwards, we didn't understand chemistry for thousands of years but still managed cement, getting metals from ores, explosives, etc.

Then we did figure out chemistry and one of the Nobel prizes in it led to both chemical weapons and cheap fertiliser.

We're all over the place.

Re: Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden

#617

Post by machomaster »

yeasku wrote: post #575
machomaster wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstood. This is how the conversation went: 1. Is there steady progress in AI? 2. What example do you need? In every single benchmark AI is getting better and better. 3. Job satisfaction and human flourishing. Hence my answer "AI is very satisfied in doing the job, just ask it". It came about because of the stupid comment 3, which tried to link and put a blame on unrelatable things (akin to refering to obes…

I did not misunderstood anything clanker.

I don't even know who you are.

I was answering user "lomase".

Re: Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden

#618

Post by bluefirebrand »

torben-friis wrote: post #475
etherlord wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont think it really matters if your or I or regular people are ok with it if the people with power are. There doesnt seem to be much any of us regular folks can do to stop it, especially as Ai eliminates more and more jobs thus further reducing the economic power of everyday people

I disagree. There are personal decisions to make: Do you bet on keeping your technical skills sharpened, or stop and focus on product work and AI usage? Do you work for companies that go full AI or try to find one that stays “manual”? What advice do you offer as a technical lead when asked? Leadership ignoring technical advice is nothing new, but there is still value in figuring out those questions.

> What advice do you offer as a technical lead when asked

Learn to shoot a gun and grow your own food, that's my advice as a technical lead right now

Re: Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden

#619

Post by jimbokun »

maciejzj wrote: post #353

I may have developed some kind of paranoia reading HN recently, but the AI atmosphere is absolutely nuts to me. Have you ever thought that you would see a chart showing how population of horses was decimated by the mass introduction of efficient engines accompanied by an implication that there is a parallel to human population? And the article is not written in any kind of cautionary humanitarian approach, but rather…

Look at the current political environment.

In the US at least, there is a Congress incapable of taking action and a unilateral President fully on the side of tech CEOs with the heaviest investments in AI.

There is no evidence supporting short term optimism. Every indication the large corporations dictating public policy will treat us exactly like those horses when it comes to economic value.

Re: Horses: AI progress is steady. Human equivalence is sudden

#620

Post by jimbokun »

UncleMeat wrote: post #388
maciejzj wrote: post #353

I may have developed some kind of paranoia reading HN recently, but the AI atmosphere is absolutely nuts to me. Have you ever thought that you would see a chart showing how population of horses was decimated by the mass introduction of efficient engines accompanied by an implication that there is a parallel to human population? And the article is not written in any kind of cautionary humanitarian approach, but rather…

I have been completely shocked by the number of people in the tech industry who seem to genuinely place no value on humanity and so many of its outputs. I see it in the writing of leaders within VC firms and AI companies but I also see it in ordinary conversations on the caltrain or in coffee shops. Friendship, love, sex, art, even faith and childrearing are opportunities for substitution with AI. Ask an AI to create…

Those nerds can now develop an AI robot to make love to their wives while they get back to blogging about accelerationism with all the time they freed up.
Post reply on HN