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

741–750 of 920 posts

Re: AI is different

#741

Post by the8472 »

svara wrote: post #722
the8472 wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In a way it's not a fair comparison, Indeed. And the comparison is unnecessarily unfair. You're comparing the dynamic range of a single exposure on a camera vs. the adaptive dynamic range in multiple environments for human eyes. Cameras do have comparable features: adjustable exposure times and apertures. Additionally cameras can also sense IR, which might be useful for driving in the dark.

Exposure adjustment is constrained by frame rate, that doesn't buy you very much dynamic range. A system that replicates the human eye's rapid aperture adjustment and integration of images taken at quickly changing aperture/ filter settings is very much not what Tesla is putting in their cars. But again, the argument is fine in principle. It's just that you can't buy a camera that performs like the human visual syste…

Human eyes are unlikely the only thing in parameter-space that's sufficient for driving. Cameras can do IR, 360° coverage, higher frame rates, wider stereo separation... but of course nothing says Teslas sit at a good point in that space.

Re: AI is different

#742

Post by cmiles74 »

xwowsersx wrote: post #696
thegrim33 wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To play devil's advocate, how is your argument not a 'no true scottsman' argument? As in, "oh, they had a negative view of X, well that's of course because they weren't testing the new and improved X2 model which is different". Fast forward a year .. "Oh, they have a negative view on X2, well silly them, they need to be using the Y24 model, that's where it's at, the X2 model isn't good anymore". Fast forward a year .…

It's not a No True Scotsman. That fallacy redefines the group to dismiss counterexamples. The point here is different: when the thing itself keeps changing, evidence from older versions naturally goes stale. Criticisms of GPT-3.5 don't necessarily hold against GPT-4, just like reviews of Windows XP don't apply to Windows 11.

IMHO, by placing people with a negative attitude toward AI products under the guise "their priors are outdated" you effectively negate any arguments from those people. That is, because their priors are outdated their counterexamples may be dismissed. That is, indeed, the no true Scotsman!

Re: AI is different

#743

Post by fsflover »

LightBug1 wrote: post #373
fsflover wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven't you seen companies developing autonomous killing drones?

They won't take my job - unless someone has put a hit out on me.

I wanted to say that people aren't afraid of loosing their reputation even when it's about the decision of whom they kill.

Re: AI is different

#744

Post by grues-dinner »

lotsoweiners wrote: post #666
grues-dinner wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the "productive activity" is rather hard to define if there's so much "AI" (be it classical ML, LLM, ANI, AGI, ASI, whatever) around that nearly everything can be produced by nearly no one. The destruction of the labour theory of value has been a goal of "tech" for a while, but if they achieve it, what's the plan then? Assuming humans stay in control of the AIs because otherwise all bets are off, in a…

> Assuming humans stay in control of the AIs because otherwise all bets are off, in a case where a few fabulously wealthy (or at least "onwing/controlling", since the idea of wealth starts to become fuzzy) industrialists control the productive capacity for everything from farming to rocketry and there's no space for normal people to participate in production any more Why do the rest of humanity even have to participa…

Because with presumably tiny marginal costs of production, the AI owners can flood and/or buy out your human-powered economy.

You'd need a very united front and powerful incentives to prevent, say, anyone buying AI-farmed wheat when it's half the cost of human-farmed (say). If you don't prevent that, Team AI can trade wheat (and everything else) for human economy money and then dominate there.

Re: AI is different

#745

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

libraryofbabel wrote: post #697
gdubs wrote: post #622

AI has been improving at a very rapid pace, which means that a lot of people have really outdated priors. I see this all the time online where people are dismissive about AI in a way that suggests it's been a while since they last checked-in on the capabilities of models. They wrote off the coding ability of ChatGPT on version 3.5, for instance, and have missed all the advancements that have happened since. Or they t…

I do see this a lot. It's hard to have a reasonable conversation about AI amidst, on the one hand, hype-mongers and boosters talking about how we'll have AGI in 2027 and all jobs are just about to be automated away, and on the other hand, a chorus of people who hate AI so much they have invested their identify in it failing and haven't really updated their priors since ChatGPT came out. Both groups repeat the same se…

> AI will change the world in the next 20 years

Well, it's been changing the world for quite some time, both in good and bad ways. There is no need to add an arbitrary timestamp.

Re: AI is different

#746

Post by ACCount37 »

perryizgr8 wrote: post #581
vrighter wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which cameras have stereoscopic vision and the dynamic range of an eye? Even if what you're saying is true, which it's not, cameras are so inferior to eyes it's not even funny

> which cameras have stereoscopic vision Any 2 cameras separated by a few inches. > dynamic range of an eye Many cameras nowadays match or exceed the eye in dynamic range. Specially if you consider that cameras can vary their exposure from frame to frame, similar to the eye, but much faster.

What's more is, the power of depth perception in binocular vision is a function of distance between two cameras. The larger that distance is, the further out depth can be estimated.

Human skull only has two eyesockets, and it can only get this wide. But cars can carry a lot of cameras, and maintain a large fixed distance between them.

Re: AI is different

#748

Post by LouisSayers »

juniperus wrote: post #329
essnine wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The assumption here that UBI "incentivizes non-productive behavior and disincentivizes productive activity" is the part that doesn't make sense. What do you think universal means? How does it disincentivize productive activity if it is provided to everyone regardless of their income/productivity/employment/whatever?

Evolutionarily, people engage in productive activity in order to secure resources to ensure their survival and reproduction. When these necessary resources are gifted to a person, there is a lower chance that they will decide to take part in economically productive behavior. You can say that because it is universal, it should level the playing field just at a different starting point, but you are still creating a sit…

> When these necessary resources are gifted to a person, there is a lower chance that they will decide to take part in economically productive behavior.

Source?

Even if that's true though, who cares if AI and robots are doing the work?

What's so bad about allowing people leisure, time to do whatever they want? What are you afraid of?

Re: AI is different

#749

Post by ludwik »

cmiles74 wrote: post #742
xwowsersx wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a No True Scotsman. That fallacy redefines the group to dismiss counterexamples. The point here is different: when the thing itself keeps changing, evidence from older versions naturally goes stale. Criticisms of GPT-3.5 don't necessarily hold against GPT-4, just like reviews of Windows XP don't apply to Windows 11.

IMHO, by placing people with a negative attitude toward AI products under the guise "their priors are outdated" you effectively negate any arguments from those people. That is, because their priors are outdated their counterexamples may be dismissed. That is, indeed, the no true Scotsman!

I don’t see a claim that anyone with a negative attitude toward AI shouldn’t be listened to because it automatically means that they formed their opinion on older models. The claim was simply that there’s a large cohort of people who undervalue the capabilities of language models because they formed their views while evaluating earlier versions.

Re: AI is different

#750

Post by IX-103 »

libraryofbabel wrote: post #697
gdubs wrote: post #622

AI has been improving at a very rapid pace, which means that a lot of people have really outdated priors. I see this all the time online where people are dismissive about AI in a way that suggests it's been a while since they last checked-in on the capabilities of models. They wrote off the coding ability of ChatGPT on version 3.5, for instance, and have missed all the advancements that have happened since. Or they t…

I do see this a lot. It's hard to have a reasonable conversation about AI amidst, on the one hand, hype-mongers and boosters talking about how we'll have AGI in 2027 and all jobs are just about to be automated away, and on the other hand, a chorus of people who hate AI so much they have invested their identify in it failing and haven't really updated their priors since ChatGPT came out. Both groups repeat the same se…

> But they're not just "stochastic parrots." They can model the world and reason about it, albeit imperfectly and not like humans do.

I've not seen anything from a model to persuade me they're not just stochastic parrots. Maybe I just have higher expectations of stochastic parrots than you do.

I agree with you that AI will have a big impact. We're talking about somewhere between "invention of the internet" and "invention of language" levels of impact, but it's going to take a couple of decades for this to ripple through the economy.

Post reply on HN