Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Big Tech Has Suddenly Flipped on the AI Jobs Wipeout Scenario

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 106 posts

Re: Big Tech Has Suddenly Flipped on the AI Jobs Wipeout Scenario

#81

Post by latexr »

skybrian wrote: post #27
gortok wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nowadays AI chatbots and coding agents routinely assume they need to get up-to-date information in other ways, via web searches and other tool calling. So I don’t see accuracy declining at least for programming. How do those chat bots discern that the ‘web searches’ they’re using are returning human generated information only that’s been vetted instead of LLM output?

It’s true that they are only as good as their input data, but the same is true if you do your own web searches.

When you do your own web searches, you learn to trust certain signals over others. You learn which sources are trustworthy and which are suspicious. LLMs don’t do that, and they present every information to you as being equally valid.

Re: Big Tech Has Suddenly Flipped on the AI Jobs Wipeout Scenario

#82

Post by AnimalMuppet »

openquery wrote: post #28
gortok wrote: post #11

> The only thing that matters is if LLMs with sufficient scaling can become frontier AI researchers kicking off the exponential. Everything else is transient As long as the term “AI” means by-and-large LLMs with additional features sprinkled on top, the answer is no. More likely (without careful vetting by the folks aggregating these models) is that the quality will go down as more and more AI-generated output gets s…

> More likely (without careful vetting by the folks aggregating these models) is that the quality will go down as more and more AI-generated output gets subsumed into these models. This assumes that there aren't algorithmic breakthroughs which reduce training/inference costs by several OOMs. How much do these models need to do before people throw their hands in the air and say, ok this is happening. The Erdos unit di…

You're assuming that frontier AI research can "kick off the exponential" - that there exists such an exponential to kick off, and that frontier AI research can reach it soon, rather than in a couple centuries. Those are massive assumptions that have exactly zero empirical data behind them.

Re: Big Tech Has Suddenly Flipped on the AI Jobs Wipeout Scenario

#83

Post by 1986 »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #42
uejfiweun wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course not. This coming crash will be where we learn that tech is "too big to fail" in the same way that the financial system is. They'll let one player fail (likely Anthropic, due to the constant fighting with the government) and bail out the rest.

I guess I'm not sure why you'd expect it to be any different than the dotcom bubble, when this didn't really happen. "Too big to fail" is a thing in finance because of contagion factors that don't really apply to tech; there's no number of AI company bankruptcies that would force your bank to suspend withdrawals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_Silicon_Valley_Ban...

Re: Big Tech Has Suddenly Flipped on the AI Jobs Wipeout Scenario

#84

Post by uejfiweun »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #42
uejfiweun wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course not. This coming crash will be where we learn that tech is "too big to fail" in the same way that the financial system is. They'll let one player fail (likely Anthropic, due to the constant fighting with the government) and bail out the rest.

I guess I'm not sure why you'd expect it to be any different than the dotcom bubble, when this didn't really happen. "Too big to fail" is a thing in finance because of contagion factors that don't really apply to tech; there's no number of AI company bankruptcies that would force your bank to suspend withdrawals.

The reason is because AI is viewed by the powers that be as inexorably linked to national security. If you haven't noticed, every lab out there has the same excuse when pressed about the disruption caused by their technology - "we do it or else China does."

Re: Big Tech Has Suddenly Flipped on the AI Jobs Wipeout Scenario

#85

Post by aitchnyu »

gortok wrote: post #11

> The only thing that matters is if LLMs with sufficient scaling can become frontier AI researchers kicking off the exponential. Everything else is transient As long as the term “AI” means by-and-large LLMs with additional features sprinkled on top, the answer is no. More likely (without careful vetting by the folks aggregating these models) is that the quality will go down as more and more AI-generated output gets s…

Is model collapse still an unsolved topic? Once saw a method that determines if a training input is high quality.

Re: Big Tech Has Suddenly Flipped on the AI Jobs Wipeout Scenario

#86

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

1986 wrote: post #83
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I'm not sure why you'd expect it to be any different than the dotcom bubble, when this didn't really happen. "Too big to fail" is a thing in finance because of contagion factors that don't really apply to tech; there's no number of AI company bankruptcies that would force your bank to suspend withdrawals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_Silicon_Valley_Ban...

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply with this link? As the first line of this article says, Silicon Valley Bank failed. The shareholders were wiped out. (Some people got confused because the Twitter conversation was primarily driven by rich VCs and founders who were depositors of the bank, quite reasonably arguing that they should get their money back if at all possible.)

Re: Big Tech Has Suddenly Flipped on the AI Jobs Wipeout Scenario

#87

Post by foldr »

taurath wrote: post #79
foldr wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans face the same problem. So this at least shouldn't make AI perform worse relative to humans, even if AI slop degrades the performance of both over time.

I find it to not be acceptable if AI's trend is to degrade performance of both AI and humans at the same time, that's kinda not the goal, right? Why are we spending money to make us dumber?

AI isn't going to go away, and AI-generated content isn't going to go away. So while it's an open question the extent to which AI training will be hampered by the proliferation of AI-generated content, I think that the existence of such content is a reality that we'll have to accept, whether you like it or not.

Re: Big Tech Has Suddenly Flipped on the AI Jobs Wipeout Scenario

#88

Post by rayleightaylor »

catigula wrote: post #55
gortok wrote: post #11

> The only thing that matters is if LLMs with sufficient scaling can become frontier AI researchers kicking off the exponential. Everything else is transient As long as the term “AI” means by-and-large LLMs with additional features sprinkled on top, the answer is no. More likely (without careful vetting by the folks aggregating these models) is that the quality will go down as more and more AI-generated output gets s…

>As long as the term “AI” means by-and-large LLMs with additional features sprinkled on top, the answer is no. More likely (without careful vetting by the folks aggregating these models) is that the quality will go down as more and more AI-generated output gets subsumed into these models. Nope. This isn't how it works. AI progress has largely been synthetic and has produced leaps and bounds capabilities increases in…

[dead]

Re: Big Tech Has Suddenly Flipped on the AI Jobs Wipeout Scenario

#89

Post by catigula »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #71
catigula wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but you aren't familiar with frontier models if you think it's not "good enough". The latest models are quite a bit more capable than most people in many regards already.

No, they aren't. Not even at the one thing (programming) which they are supposed to be best at. People are always claiming "frontier models are so much better" but that is a false claim.

Which "frontier models" are you familiar with in a programming context?

I'm a staff engineer and the amount of work and even troubleshooting the latest crop of LLMs can do at my behest is jaw-dropping.

I perused your comment history, and you refer to models as 'ChatGPT', which doesn't really inspire much confidence that you know what you're talking about.

People keep telling you that you're behind and using old technology and that the most recent models are really good and a sea-change because, well - they are.

Re: Big Tech Has Suddenly Flipped on the AI Jobs Wipeout Scenario

#90

Post by hn_acc1 »

yardie wrote: post #4

Dumbasses the lot of them. Took that nonsense to Capitol Hill, trying to tell a bunch of politicians who knew damn well they are only there as long as they can keep their voters employed. They could have asked their own AI what happens when employment reaches 40-50%. Hint: it's never good. They were going to become another problem the government had to solve. Also, UBI is non-starter no matter what Sam Altman believe…

Sam Altman doesn't BELIEVE in UBI - but he knows it's the only way to SELL his product, therefore he pretends he believes in it. None of these guys want one cent going to anyone but themselves.
Post reply on HN