>Article praising LLMs. >Look inside. >Written by someone having a stake in LLM business. Every time.
Would you rather read an article praising LLMs written by someone having a stake in chilli peppers business?
Asking for a friend.
A Hitchhiker's Guide to the AI Bubble
81–90 of 90 posts
Re: A Hitchhiker's Guide to the AI Bubble
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
right yea, Whens the last time you saw management tell you which compiler or toolchain you need to use to build your code ? But now we have CEOs and management dictating how coding should be done. In the article the author admits: "I started coding again last year. But I hadn't written production code since 2012" and then goes on to say: "While established developers debate whether AI will replace them, these kids ar…
Every praise of LLM is invariably preceded by some form of "I don't really understand their output but it looks great". That right there is the strongest signal I've caught so far that the whole thing is just a funny money pyramid. In Sirens of Titan Vonnegut tells a story where governments decided to boost the space industry to drive aggregate demand. This is exactly what is happening. When you realize that the whol…
Well, I don't really understand the detailed content of executables compiled by GCC/LLVM either, but I am not going to go back to writing assembly language. Having said that, I am old enough to remember worrying about compiler bugs, just like today I worry about LLM hallucinated vibe code. The hope is that we'll figure out how to make it more reliable---and I believe there seems to be a clear path forward.
Re: A Hitchhiker's Guide to the AI Bubble
#83> I think [AGI is] alchemy-level nonsense.
Fair enough but he doesn't give much factual reasoning to support that. If you believe the brain is a biological computer and AI computing keeps advancing, at some point it will be able to do the same stuff or better, which is what most people think of as AGI.
I wrote about that for my uni entrance exam 43 years ago and it's always just seemed obvious common sense to me. I know Turing wrote about it before then but I never read that - it's just seems kind of obvious it'll happen.
Re: A Hitchhiker's Guide to the AI Bubble
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jaws is an iconic horror film partly because the mechanical shark kept breaking, forcing them to do more with atmosphere and less with animatronics.
Yes. A more obvious example is The Blair Witch Project, which cost less than a million dollars even after all the marketing was done (and cost essentially nothing to make). The original Halloween was a very low-budget movie considering how long it took to shoot. Vin Diesel's career was established by his own movie, Strays, which cost less than $50K. Which is zero budget, essentially, for a film that opened at Sundanc…
> Tech people, I suspect, tend to assume that AI brings "full creative freedom" to artists the same way a patron does when they say "you can have full creative freedom".
I think you introduce a rather arbitrary separation here. I spoke of the artistic communities in the sense of a normative force which establishes cultural acceptance and means of valuation for AI in artistic processes. Similar to what happened to photography and computer graphics.
Do you really think there is a distinct arch type of a tech person and an art person? If so, I would consider myself as an art person. I am by no means a professional artist, but I am a creative person who sees powerful tools emerge.
I work on video games as a hobbyist since I am 10. But I am not a good artist in the sense that my imagination and feature creep lead me to failure. These new emerging tools might bring me the freedom to pursue more of my ideas. When I started, I learned DirectX programming in pursuit of artistic freedom, now there is Unity3D and other engines that could have made the difference for me in what I would have become.
I am sure there are many more like me, who lost themselves in unattainable visions, and also many professional artists, who have ideas in the back of their heads which seem unrealistic to pursue.
Gen AI will hopefully enable many of those previously unattainable visions to come true.
Re: A Hitchhiker's Guide to the AI Bubble
#85This is the most coherent and IMO accurate take on AI/LLM I have seen in 5 years.
As a specialist in one of the original industries Geoffrey Hinton predicted would be gone (Radiology) my job remains safe and even more in demand 9 years later.
Meanwhile, as a hobbyist programmer, I’m suddenly able to build multiple production tools solving real problems, simply because AI agents are doing the scut-work for me and optimising my time into code review and architectural design. For $200/month, it’s paying for itself many times over.
Re: A Hitchhiker's Guide to the AI Bubble
#86[deleted]
Re: A Hitchhiker's Guide to the AI Bubble
#87> I think [AGI is] alchemy-level nonsense. Fair enough but he doesn't give much factual reasoning to support that. If you believe the brain is a biological computer and AI computing keeps advancing, at some point it will be able to do the same stuff or better, which is what most people think of as AGI. I wrote about that for my uni entrance exam 43 years ago and it's always just seemed obvious common sense to me. I k…
Working on a follow up article on exactly this (it is mathematically impossible and we have receipts...)
Re: A Hitchhiker's Guide to the AI Bubble
#88> I think [AGI is] alchemy-level nonsense. Fair enough but he doesn't give much factual reasoning to support that. If you believe the brain is a biological computer and AI computing keeps advancing, at some point it will be able to do the same stuff or better, which is what most people think of as AGI. I wrote about that for my uni entrance exam 43 years ago and it's always just seemed obvious common sense to me. I k…
Working on a follow up article on exactly this (it is mathematically impossible and we have receipts...)
I'm not sure what mathematical principle you could invoke that would make sense?
Roger Penrose made an argument like we can know Gödel's theorem is true without being able to prove it but AI can't, but I think you can figure both are guessing in a similar pattern recognising kind of way.
Re: A Hitchhiker's Guide to the AI Bubble
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Working on a follow up article on exactly this (it is mathematically impossible and we have receipts...)
I'm not sure what mathematical principle you could invoke that would make sense? Roger Penrose made an argument like we can know Gödel's theorem is true without being able to prove it but AI can't, but I think you can figure both are guessing in a similar pattern recognising kind of way.
Hopefully will post here before the weekend but tl;dr the mathematics to model neurons has not yet been discovered/invented
Re: A Hitchhiker's Guide to the AI Bubble
#90I think a key point from this article that I agree strongly with is the simple point that it is crucial that everyone recognise we are currently in an AI bubble . I often find people contest this with the non-sequitur of "No, it's not a bubble, there is real value there. We are building things with it". The fact there is real value in the technology does not contradict in any way that we are in a bubble. It may even…
Once there's a consensus around a bubble the bubble has already burst?
Not really I searched up some of articles from 1996/97 dot com was already a bubble in 97...
But it had minor 15-20% corrections but kept rising for another year or two after that...
Bubbles are driving by irrational beliefs. And they won't be irrational if we could understand them.
AI is surely a bubble but it can go on for another 3-4 years when something possibly unrelated to AI pops it.