Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's an example of an intellectual task that you don't think AI will be capable of by 2027?
Being accountable for telling the truth
accountability sinks are all you need
AI 2027
71–80 of 641 posts
Re: AI 2027
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
It won't be able to write a compelling novel, or build a software system solving a real-world problem, or operate heavy machinery, create a sprite sheet or 3d models, design a building or teach. Long term planning and execution and operating in the physical world is not within reach. Slight variations of known problems should be possible (as long as the size of the solution is small enough).
I'm pretty sure you're wrong for at least 2 of those: For 3D models, check out blender-mcp: https://old.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1joaowb/claude... https://old.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1jbsn86/claude_crea... Also this: https://old.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1hejglg/tr... For teaching, I'm using it to learn about tech I'm unfamiliar with every day, it's one of the things it's the most amazing at…
Just think about the delta of what the LLM does and what a human does, or why can’t the LLM replace the human, e.g. in a game studio.
If it can replace a teacher or an artist in 2027, you’re right and I’m wrong.
Re: AI 2027
#73how am I supposed to take articles like this seriously when they say absolutely false bullshit like this
> the AIs can do everything taught by a CS degree
no, they fucking can't. not at all. not even close. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Does anyone really think this?
Why have I not seen -any- complete software created via vibe coding yet?
Re: AI 2027
#74I just spent some time trying to make claude and gemini make a violin plot of some polar dataframe. I've never used it and it's just for prototyping so i just went "apply a log to the values and make a violin plot of this polars dataframe". ANd had to iterate with them for 4/5 times each. Gemini got it right but then used deprecated methods I might be doing llm wrong, but i just can't get how people might actually do…
> had to iterate with them for 4/5 times each. Gemini got it right but then used deprecated methods
How hard would it be to automate these iterations?
How hard would it be to automatically check and improve the code to avoid deprecated methods?
I agree that most products are still underwhelming, but that doesn't mean that the underlying tech is not already enough to deliver better LLM-based products. Lately I've been using LLMs more and more to get started with writing tests on components I'm not familiar with, it really helps.
Re: AI 2027
#75Older and related article from one of the authors titled "What 2026 looks like", that is holding up very well against time. Written in mid 2021 (pre ChatGPT) https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/6Xgy6CAf2jqHhynHL/what-... //edit: remove the referral tags from URL
nevermind, I hate this website :D
Re: AI 2027
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty good at what I do, at least according to myself and the people I work with, and I'm comparing its capabilities (the latest version of Claude used as an agent inside Cursor) to myself. It can't fully do things on its own and makes mistakes, but it can do a lot. But suppose you're right, it's 60% as good as "stackoverflow copy-pasting programmers". Isn't that a pretty insanely impressive milestone to just di…
I appreciate your reply. My tone was a little dismissive; I'm currently deep deep in the trenches trying to unwind a tremendous amount of LLM slop in my team's codebase so I'm a little sensitive. I use Claude every day. It is definitely impressive, but in my experience only marginally more impressive than ChatGPT was a few years ago. It hallucinates less and compiles more reliably, but still produces really poor desi…
Oh, sorry to hear that you have to deal with that!
The way I'm getting a sense of the progress is using AI for what AI is currently good at, using my human brain to do the part AI is currently bad at, and comparing it to doing the same work without AI's help.
I feel like AI is pretty close to automating 60-80% of the work I would've had to do manually two years ago (as a full-stack web developer).
It doesn't mean that the remaining 20-40% will be automated very quickly, I'm just saying that I don't see the progress getting any slower.
Re: AI 2027
#77This is hilariously over-optimistic on the timescales. Like on this timeline we'll have a Mars colony in 10 years, immortality drugs in 15 and Half Life 3 in 20.
Can you share your detailed projection of what you expect the future to look like so I can compare?
Slightly slower web frameworks by 2026. By 2030, a lot slower.
Re: AI 2027
#78Older and related article from one of the authors titled "What 2026 looks like", that is holding up very well against time. Written in mid 2021 (pre ChatGPT) https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/6Xgy6CAf2jqHhynHL/what-... //edit: remove the referral tags from URL
nevermind, I hate this website :D
Surely you're familiar with https://ai.meta.com/research/cicero/diplomacy/ (2022)?
> I wonder who pays the bills of the authors. And your bills, for that matter.
Also, what a weirdly conspiratorial question. There's a prominent "Who are we?" button near the top of the page and it's not a secret what any of the authors did or do for a living.
Re: AI 2027
#79Seems very sinophobic. Deepseek and Manus have shown that China is legitimately an innovation powerhouse in AI but this article makes it sound like they will just keep falling behind without stealing.
That whole section seems to be pretty directly based on DeepSeek's "very impressive work" with R1 being simultaneously very impressive, and several months behind OpenAI. (They more or less say as much in footnote 36.) They blame this on US chip controls just barely holding China back from the cutting edge by a few months. I wouldn't call that a knock on Chinese innovation.
Re: AI 2027
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
nevermind, I hate this website :D
Surely you're familiar with https://ai.meta.com/research/cicero/diplomacy/ (2022)? > I wonder who pays the bills of the authors. And your bills, for that matter. Also, what a weirdly conspiratorial question. There's a prominent "Who are we?" button near the top of the page and it's not a secret what any of the authors did or do for a living.
hmmm I apparently confused it with an RTS, oops.
also it's not conspiratorial to wonder if someone in silicon valley today receives funding through the AI industry lol like half the industry is currently propped up by that hype, probably half the commenters here are paid via AI VC investments