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

891–900 of 920 posts

Re: AI is different

#891

Post by player1234 »

silvestrov wrote: post #497
djtango wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a Nolan thing like how Dunkirk used no green screen. I think Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings embody the transition from old school camera tricks to CGI as they leaned very heavily into set and prop design and as a result have aged very gracefully as movies

I think the first HP movie was more magical than the latter ones as they felt too "Marvel CGI" for me. Marvel movies have become tiresome for me, too much CGI that does not tell any interesting story. Old animated Disney movies are more rewatchable.

And they cost 300 million to make be cause of the CGI fest they are, hence need close to a billion in profits when considering marketing and the theater cut. So the cost of CGI and the enshittification of movies seems to be a good analogy to the usefuleness of LLM/AI.

Not a flex.

Re: AI is different

#892

Post by player1234 »

yoz-y wrote: post #511
jhbadger wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can already see this with YouTube: AI-generated videos are a mild amusement, not a replacement for video creators, because made by AI is becoming a negative label in a world where the presence of AI video is widely known. But that's because, at present, AI generated video isn't very good. Consider the history of CGI. In the 1990s and early 2000s, it was common to complain about how the move away from practical s…

That said, the complaint is coming back. Namely because most new movies use an incredible amount of CGI and due to the time constraints the quality suffers. As such, CGI is once again becoming a negative label. I don’t know if there is an AI equivalent of this. Maybe the fact that as models seem to move away from a big generalist model at launch, towards a multitude of smaller expert models (but retaining the brandin…

The equivalent is the massive cost of CGI and LLMs in comparison to the lackluster end result.

Re: AI is different

#893

Post by LennyHenrysNuts »

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AI has been improving at a very rapid pace, which means that a lot of people have really outdated priors.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…

And that's why I keep checking back in.

They're still pretty dumb if you want the to do anything (ie with MCPs) but they're not bad at writing and code.

Re: AI is different

#894

Post by vrighter »

the8472 wrote: post #509
svara wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A fine argument in principle, but even if we talk only about vision, the human visual system is much more powerful than a camera. Between brightly sunlit snow and a starlit night, we can cover more than 45 stops with the same pair of eyeballs; the very best cinematographic cameras reach something like 16. In a way it's not a fair comparison, since we're taking into account retinal adaptation, eyelids/eyelashes, pupil…

> 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.

"adjustable exposure times and apertures"

That means that to view some things better, you have to accept being completely blind to others. That is not a substitute for dynamic range.

Re: AI is different

#895

Post by ben_w »

sneak wrote: post #872
ben_w wrote: post #864

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would much rather live on a beach front property than where I live right now. I don't because the cost trade off is too high. Yes, and? My reference example was two aircraft carriers and 1:1 models of some fictional spacecraft larger than some islands, as personal private residences. > To bring the real estate market into equilibrium with UBI you would have to turn rural Nebraska into a giant slab city like ghett…

Some people’s idea of wealth is to live in high density with others. You bump up against the limits of physics, not economics. If every place has the population density of Wyoming, real wealth will be the ability to live in real cities. That’s much like what we have now.

> Some people’s idea of wealth is to live in high density with others.

Very true. But I'd say this is more of a politics problem than a physics one: any given person doesn't necessarily want to be around the people that want to be around them.

> If every place has the population density of Wyoming, real wealth will be the ability to live in real cities. That’s much like what we have now.

Cities* are where the jobs are, where the big money currently gets made, I'm not sure how much of what we have today with high density living is to show your wealth or to get your wealth — consider the density and average wealth of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherton,_California, a place I'd never want to live in for a variety of reasons, which is (1) legally a city, (2) low density, (3) high income, (4) based on what I can see from the maps, a dorm town with no industrial or commercial capacity, the only things I can see which aren't homes (or infrastructure) are municipal and schools.

* in the "dense urban areas" sense, not the USA "incorporated settlements" sense, not the UK's "letters patent" sense

Real wealth is the ability to be special, to stand out from the crowd in a good way.

In a world of fully automated luxury for all, I do not know what this will look like.

Peacock tails of some kind to show off how much we can afford to waste? The rich already do so with watches that cost more than my first apartment, perhaps they'll start doing so with performative disfiguring infections to show off their ability to afford healthcare.

Re: AI is different

#896

Post by player1234 »

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…

Improve how? And when? Give us the map. Making a prediction straight into sci fi territory and then become worried about that future is hella lame.

Re: AI is different

#897

Post by the8472 »

vrighter wrote: post #894
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.

"adjustable exposure times and apertures" That means that to view some things better, you have to accept being completely blind to others. That is not a substitute for dynamic range.

Yes, and? Human eyes also have limited instantaneous dynamic range much smaller than their total dynamic range. Part of the mechanism is the same (pupil vs. camera iris). They can't see starlight during the day and tunnels need adaption lighting to ease them in/out.

Re: AI is different

#898

Post by sneak »

dns_snek wrote: post #857
sneak wrote: post #838

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re not “services provided” unless you have the option of refusing them.

What do you mean? Is this one of those sovereign citizen type of arguments? The government provides a range of services that are deemed to be broadly beneficial to society. Your refusal of that service doesn't change the fact that the service is being provided. If you don't like the services you can get involved in politics or you can leave, both are valid options, while claiming that you're being enslaved and robbed…

Not at all. If it happens to you even when you don’t want it and don’t want to pay for it (and are forced to pay for it on threat of violence), that is no service.

Literally nobody alive today was “involved in politics” when the US income tax amendment was legislated.

Also, you can’t leave; doubly so if you are wealthy enough. Do you not know about the exit tax?

Re: AI is different

#899

Post by player1234 »

avidphantasm wrote: post #415
chrisco255 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> A human driver is still far more adaptive and requires a lot less training than AI I get what you are saying, but humans need 16 years of training to begin driving. I wouldn’t call that not a lot.

I trained no driving my first 16 years of life, seems like fuckkng hell your upbringing training nothing but driving the first 16 years. Your parents should be locked up.

Re: AI is different

#900

Post by chuckadams »

int_19h wrote: post #878
cobbzilla wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not being 100% algorithmically or mathematically derived is a good start. I’m certain there’s more but to me this is a minimum bar.

If your brain is not running algorithms (which are ultimately just math regardless of the compute substrate), how do you imagine it working then, aside from religious woo like "souls"?

I dunno, I think artificiality is a pretty reasonable criterion to go by, but it doesn't seem at all related to originality, nor does originality really stack up when we too are also repeating and remixing what we were previously taught. Clearly we do a lot more than that as well, but when it comes to defining creativity, I don't think we're any closer to nailing that Jello to the tree.
Post reply on HN