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

81–90 of 920 posts

Re: AI is different

#81

Post by CamperBob2 »

chrisco255 wrote: post #42
btilly wrote: post #7

In every technology wave so far, we've disrupted many existing jobs. However we've also opened up new kinds of jobs. And, because it is easier to retrain humans than build machines for those jobs, we wound up with more and better jobs. This is the first technology wave that doesn't just displace humans, but which can be trained to the new job opportunities more easily than humans can. Right now it can't replace human…

> 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…

Self-driving cars are a political problem, not a technical problem. A functioning government would put everything from automation-friendly signaling standards to battery-swapping facilities into place.

We humans used to do that sort of thing, but not anymore, so... bring on the AI. It won't work as well as it might otherwise be able to, but it'll probably kill fewer humans on the road at the end of the day. A low bar to clear.

Re: AI is different

#82

Post by atleastoptimal »

chrisco255 wrote: post #42
btilly wrote: post #7

In every technology wave so far, we've disrupted many existing jobs. However we've also opened up new kinds of jobs. And, because it is easier to retrain humans than build machines for those jobs, we wound up with more and better jobs. This is the first technology wave that doesn't just displace humans, but which can be trained to the new job opportunities more easily than humans can. Right now it can't replace human…

> 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…

Everything anyone could say about bad AI driving could be said about bad human drivers. Nevertheless, Waymo has not had a single fatal accident despite many millions of passenger miles and is safer than human drivers.

Re: AI is different

#83

Post by throwaway314155 »

AdieuToLogic wrote: post #73
__float wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't mean we _understand_ them, that just means we can put the blocks together to build one.

> That doesn't mean we _understand_ them, that just means we can put the blocks together to build one. Perhaps this[0] will help in understanding them then: Foundations of Large Language Models This is a book about large language models. As indicated by the title, it primarily focuses on foundational concepts rather than comprehensive coverage of all cutting-edge technologies. The book is structured into five main ch…

I think the real issue here is understanding _you_.

Re: AI is different

#84

Post by voidhorse »

I agree with the general observation, and I've been of this mind since 2023 (if AI really gets as good as the boosters claim, we will need a new economic system). I usually like Antirez's writing, but this post was a whole lot of...idk nothing? I don't feel like this post said anything interesting, and it was kind incoherent at moments. I think in some respects it's a function of the technology and situation we're in—the current wave of "AI" is still a lot of empty promises and underdelivery. Yes, it is getting better, and yes people are getting clever by letting LLMs use tools, but these things still aren't intelligent insofar as they do not reason. Until we achieve that, I'm not sure there's really as much to fear as everyone thinks.

We still need humans in the loop as of now. These tools are still very far from being good enough to fully autonomously manage each other and manage systems, and, arguably, because the systems we build are for humans we will always need humans to understand them to some extent. LLMs can replace labor, but they cannot replace human intent and teleology. One day maybe they will achieve intentions of their own, but that is an entirely different ballgame. The economy ultimately is a battle of intentions, resources, and ends. And the human beings will still be a part of this picture until all labor can be fully automated across the entire suite of human needs.

We should also bear in mind our own bias as "knowledge workers". Manual laborers arguably already had their analogous moment. The encoding kept on humming. There isn't anything particularly special about "white collar" work in that regard. The same thing may happen. A new industry requiring new skills might emerge in the fallout of white collar automation. Not to mention, LLMs only work in the digital realm. handicraft artisanry is still a thing and is still, appreciated, albeit in much smaller markets.

Re: AI is different

#85

Post by atleastoptimal »

_jab wrote: post #59

I'm skeptical of arguments like this. If we look at most impactful technologies since the year 2000, AI is not even in my top 3. Social networking, mobile computing, and cloud computing have all done more to alter society and daily life than has AI. And yes, I recognize that AI has already created profound change, in that every software engineer now depends heavily on copilots, in that education faces a major integri…

AI has already rendered academic take-home assignments moot. No other tech has had an impact like that, even the internet.

Re: AI is different

#86

Post by rafaelero »

chrisco255 wrote: post #42
btilly wrote: post #7

In every technology wave so far, we've disrupted many existing jobs. However we've also opened up new kinds of jobs. And, because it is easier to retrain humans than build machines for those jobs, we wound up with more and better jobs. This is the first technology wave that doesn't just displace humans, but which can be trained to the new job opportunities more easily than humans can. Right now it can't replace human…

> 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…

I feel like you are trapped in the first assessment of this problem. Yes, we are not there yet, but have you thought about the rate of improvement? Is that rate of improvement reliable? Fast? That's what matters, not where we are today.

Re: AI is different

#87

Post by russellbeattie »

> "However, if AI avoids plateauing long enough to become significantly more useful..."

As William Gibson said, "The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed." Even if LLMs, reasoning algorithms, object recognition, and diffusion models stopped improving today, we're still at a point where massive societal changes are inevitable as the tech spreads out across industries. AI is going to steadily replace chair-to-keyboard interfaces in just about every business you can imagine.

Interestingly, AI seems to be affecting the highest level "white collar" professionals first, rather than replacing the lowest level workers immediately, like what happened when blue collar work was automated. We're still pretty far away from AI truck drivers, but people with fine arts or computer science degrees, for example, are already feeling the impact.

"Decimation" is definitely an accurate way to describe what's in the process of happening. What used to take 10 floors of white collar employees will steadily decline to just 1. No idea what everyone else will be doing.

Re: AI is different

#88

Post by devmor »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #85
_jab wrote: post #59

I'm skeptical of arguments like this. If we look at most impactful technologies since the year 2000, AI is not even in my top 3. Social networking, mobile computing, and cloud computing have all done more to alter society and daily life than has AI. And yes, I recognize that AI has already created profound change, in that every software engineer now depends heavily on copilots, in that education faces a major integri…

AI has already rendered academic take-home assignments moot. No other tech has had an impact like that, even the internet.

What? The internet did that ages ago. We just pretended it didn't because some students didn't know how to use Google.

Re: AI is different

#89

Post by schneems »

DiscourseFan wrote: post #78
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 major shift for me is now its normal to take Waymos. Yeah, there aren't as fast as Uber if you have to get across town, but for trips less than 10 miles they're my go to now.

Ive never taken one. They seem nice though.

On the other hand, the Tesla “robotaxi” scares the crap out of me. No lidar and seems to drive more aggressively. The Mark Rober YouTube of a Tesla plowing into a road-runner style fake tunnel is equal parts hilarious and nightmare fuel when you realize that’s what’s next to your kid biking down the street.

Re: AI is different

#90

Post by prairieroadent »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #80

This is an accurate assessment. I do feel that there is a routine bias on HN to underplay AI. I think it's people not wanting to lose control or relative status in the world. AI is an existential threat to the unique utility of humans, which has been the last line of defense against absolute despotism (i.e. a tyrannical government will not kill all its citizens because it still needs them to perform jobs. If humans a…

[dead]
Post reply on HN