Live data from Hacker News

The great sameness: a comic on how AI makes us more alike

itsnicethat.com

81–86 of 86 posts

Re: The great sameness: a comic on how AI makes us more alike

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say you don't usually defend LLMs, and then give a defense of LLMs based on a giant misreading of what is absolutely standard human behaviour. In my local library recently, they'd two boards in the lobby as you entered, one with all the drawings created by one class of ~7 year olds based on some book they read, and a second the same idea but the next class up on some other book. Both classes had apparently been a…

LLMs and image generation models will also give crazy variable output when you give an open-ended prompt and increase temperature. However, we usually want high coherence and relevance, both from human and synthetic responses.

[dead]

Re: The great sameness: a comic on how AI makes us more alike

#82
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I now have a visceral reaction to being told that I'm ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!, for example. It seemed an innocuous phrase before -- rather like em dashes -- but has now become grating and meaningless. Robotic and no longer human.

I'm launching a new service to tell people that they are absolutely, 100% wrong. That what they are considering is a terrible idea, has been done before, and will never work. Possibly I can outsource the work to HN comments :)

BrandonM as a Service?

Re: The great sameness: a comic on how AI makes us more alike

#83
post #26

Here's something I made using AI about this. Came from a conversation I had with a Redditor couple of years ago. https://jumpshare.com/share/BXUFsIxvjPPCTyEjgly3

I don't get the point. I agree with the text, but what do the images mean?

Nothing in particular that was just a style I'm into.

Re: The great sameness: a comic on how AI makes us more alike

#84
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm launching a new service to tell people that they are absolutely, 100% wrong. That what they are considering is a terrible idea, has been done before, and will never work. Possibly I can outsource the work to HN comments :)

BrandonM as a Service?

After the reply to his infamous comment¹, BrandonM responded with “You are correct”.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224

¹ Which people really should read in full and consider all the context. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27068148

Re: The great sameness: a comic on how AI makes us more alike

#85
post #84
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BrandonM as a Service?

After the reply to his infamous comment¹, BrandonM responded with “You are correct”. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 ¹ Which people really should read in full and consider all the context. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27068148

Yeah BrandonM got unfairly maligned but it's still funny.

Re: The great sameness: a comic on how AI makes us more alike

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where "invented" really means "had the right set of skills, knowledge and experience, and was paying attention at the exact right moment when all the pieces of the puzzle were collected together on the table". Scientific and technological progress is inherently incremental. It takes a lot of hard work, dedication and specialization to spot the pieces ready to be connected - but the final act of putting them together…

> Which is why, historically, ~all scientific discoveries have been made by multiple researchers (or teams) independently, at roughly the same time This is quite a big claim. All of them? I know there are many discoveries that fit the pattern you're pointing out, but I wouldn't go as far as to say all, or even the majority of them do.

> All of them?

"~all" stands for approximately all, but maybe this mnemonic is less known than I thought. I'll try to avoid using it in the future.

> I know there are many discoveries that fit the pattern you're pointing out, but I wouldn't go as far as to say all I wouldn't go as far as to say all, or even the majority of them do.

I'm yet to encounter one that does not fit this pattern. As far as I can recall, for every discovery I've learned about, eventually[0] I've also learned it was made independently by others within few years; in some cases, the well-known case wasn't even the first of many, just the one that coined the name for some reason. Politics, geography, better formulation, better promotion, etc.

Related, but not the same - I'm also yet to encounter a discovery that took a great conceptual leap to arrive at. In every case I can think of, the core insight was quite obvious once enough prerequisite information was available[1], and pretty much happened on schedule. Sometimes the same person was involved in discovering the last missing pieces and then connecting them, but that's still a case of research being iterative.

It goes beyond science, too. You've probably seen Burke's Connections[2] (if not, I very strongly recommend it); it demonstrates clearly that technological advancement only happens[3] when all necessary pieces are there: scientific knowledge, necessary technology and right socioeconomic conditions.

--

[0] - Sometimes it would be immediately, like in my teenage years, when reading a book about some mathematicians that went into the drama of who stole who's proof or took credit for the others' work (quite dramatic that book was). Sometimes it would be later on - years, even a decade later - when a book or a Wikipedia article about some breakthrough gave me more historical context than I expected. I eventually noticed the pattern; since then, I sometimes search for extra context immediately upon learning something.

[1] - Hindsight is 20/20, I know.

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(British_TV_series...

[3] - I.e. actually sticks around - think steam engine in ancient Rome vs. Industrial Revolution.

Post reply on HN