91–100 of 224 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI is smarter than everyone already. Seriously, the breadth of knowledge the AI possesses has no human counterpart.
Having knowledge is not exactly the same as being smart though is it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being an intelligent being is not the same as being considered intelligent relative to the rest of your species. I think we’re just looking to create an intelligence, meaning, having the attributes that make a being intelligent, which mostly are the ability to reason and learn. I think the being might take over from there no? With humans, the speed and ease with which we learn and reason is capped. I think a very dum…
Why would the dumb intelligence be less constrained than a human in making itself smarter?
Currently, LLMs require hooks and active engagement with humans to ‘do’ anything. Including learn.
I think whether any text is written with the help of AI is not the main issue. The real issue is that for texts like police reports a human still has to take full responsibility for its contents. If we preserve this understanding, than the question of which texts are generated by AI becomes moot.
I don’t understand the urgency to replace human work with AI. Why is every organization so eager about skipping the AI as an assistant step? Here there are already massive productivity gains in using the AI to create the draft of the report, it makes little economical to make it do the final version compared to the risk, maybe it’s just plain laziness? Same with developers, why is very organization wanting to leapfro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's pretty similar to looking something up with a search engine, mashing together some top results + hallucinating a bit, isn't it? The psychological effects of the chat-like interface + the lower friction of posting in said chat again vs reading 6 tabs and redoing your search, seems to be the big killer feature. The main "new" info is often incorrect info. If you could get the full page text of every url on the fir…
> I'm guessing someone is gonna compare this to the old Dropbox post, but whatever. If they do, you’ll be in good company. That post is about the exact opposite of what people usually link it for. I’ll let Dan explain: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27067281
What worries me is that _a lot of people seem to see LLMs as smarter than themselves_ and anthropmorphize them into a sort of human-exact intelligence. The worst-case scenario of Utah's law is that when the disclaimer is added that the report is generated by AI, enough jurists begin to associate that with "likely more correct than not".
Reading how AI is being approached in China, the focus is more on achieving day to day utilty, without eviscerating youth employment. In contrast, the SV focus of AI has been about skynet / singularity, with a hype cycle to match. This is supported by the lack of clarity on actual benefits, or clear data on GenAI use. Mostly I see it as great for prototyping - going from 0 to 1, and for use cases where the operator i…
Are they not going to build a “skynet” in China? Second, building skynet doesn’t imply eviscerating youth employment.
On the other hand, automation of menial tasks does eviscerate all kinds of employment, not only youth emoloyment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand the urgency to replace human work with AI. Why is every organization so eager about skipping the AI as an assistant step? Here there are already massive productivity gains in using the AI to create the draft of the report, it makes little economical to make it do the final version compared to the risk, maybe it’s just plain laziness? Same with developers, why is very organization wanting to leapfro…
Not everyone is in an urgent hurry to replace people with bots; that's a hyperbolic construct. But to try to answer some of what I think you're trying to ask about: The bot can be useful. It can be better at writing a coherent collection of paragraphs or subroutines than Alice or Bill might be, and it costs a lot less to employ than either of them do. Meanwhile: The bot never complains to HR because someone looked at…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course you have to fact check - but verification is much faster and easier than searching from scratch.
How is verification faster and easier? Normally you would check an article's citations to verify its claims, which still takes a lot of work, but an LLM can't cite its sources (it can fabricate a plausible list of fake citations, but this is not the same thing), so verification would have to involve searching from scratch anyway.
Versus finding the answer by clicking into the first few search results links and scanning text that might not have the answer.
What worries me is that _a lot of people seem to see LLMs as smarter than themselves_ and anthropmorphize them into a sort of human-exact intelligence. The worst-case scenario of Utah's law is that when the disclaimer is added that the report is generated by AI, enough jurists begin to associate that with "likely more correct than not".
> a lot of people seem to see LLMs as smarter than themselves Well, in many cases they might be right..
So yes, most people are right in that assumption, at least by the metric of how we generally measure intelligence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a lot of people seem to see LLMs as smarter than themselves Well, in many cases they might be right..
As far as I can tell from poking people on HN about what "AGI" means, there might be a general belief that the median human is not intelligent. Given that the current batch of models apparently isn't AGI I'm struggling to see a clean test of what AGI might be that a human can pass.
We are incredibly far from AGI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a lot of people seem to see LLMs as smarter than themselves Well, in many cases they might be right..
> ChatGPT (o3): Scored 136 on the Mensa Norway test in April 2025 So yes, most people are right in that assumption, at least by the metric of how we generally measure intelligence.