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

901–910 of 920 posts

Re: AI is different

#901

Post by leeoniya »

bbqfog wrote: post #598
leeoniya wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i've also made this argument. would you ever trust safety-critical or money-moving software that was fully written by AI without any professional human (or several) to audit it? the answer today is, "obviously not". i dont know if this will ever change, tbh.

I would. If something has proven results, it won't matter to me if a human is in the loop or not. Waymo has worked great for me for instance.

Waymo itself was not designed, implemented, and shipped by AI.

i suspect humans had to invest millions of hours into writing the code, the tests, and validating the outputs.

Re: AI is different

#902

Post by m4nu3l »

Davidzheng wrote: post #867
m4nu3l wrote: post #863

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So if tier one needs something from tier two I don't think they need to even ask You mean stealing? I'm assuming no stealing. > But this also means probably there will be no way way for tier two to extract any of the resources which tier one needs at all bc the marginal cost is determined by tier one If someone from tier 2 owns an oil field, tier 1 has to pay them to get it at a price that is higher than what the t…

OK let's assume no stealing (which is unlikely). I think the previous argument was a little flawed anyhow, so let me start again. I mean fundamentally if tier 2 has something to offer to tier 1, it is not yet at the equilibrium you describe (of separate economies). I think it's likely that tier 2 (before full separation) initially controls some resources. In exchange for resources tier 1 has a lot of AI-substitute la…

> Ultimately, I think such a separation as you describe will be stable only when all natural resources are controlled by tier 1 and tier 2 gets by with either gifts or stealing form tier 1.

For that to happen tier 1 would have to buy all of the resources from tier 2. Would you sell your house and be homeless so that you can have a highly efficient humanoid robot? I don't think so. And sooner or later, what tier 2 would want from tier 1 is what they need to build their AIs, and then they'd be more similar to tier 1.

Re: AI is different

#903

Post by apetresc »

apwell23 wrote: post #537
apetresc wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, test after test have shown that the vast, vast majority of humans are woefully unable to distinguish good AI art made by SOTA models from human art, and in many/most cases actively prefer it. Maybe you’re a gentleman of such discerningly superior taste that you can always manage to identify the spark of human creativity that eludes the rest of us. Or maybe you’ve just told yourself you hate it and therefore y…

you couldve given me an example instead of this butthurt comment :)

Sure! Here's the results of Scott Alexander's fairly large-scale "AI Art Turing Test": https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-did-you-do-on-the-ai-ar...

Note that this was already almost a year ago, and the results should be even more one-sided now.

Re: AI is different

#904

Post by monknomo »

jrvarela56 wrote: post #889
monknomo wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you should check out what happened to steelworkers when the mills all moved to cheaper places.

I don't think this is a fair comparison. It's easier to move and retrain nowadays; there's also more kinds of jobs. These things will probably become even easier with more automation.

The moving thing is not true; or if it is easy we're at a historic low of people doing easy things (at least in America)[1]. Internationally, it sure looks to me like folks want to tighten borders and reduce international movement [no cite; just vibes].

As for retraining, I am skeptical. I think it, at best, puts an older demographic in competition for entry level jobs, and generally at a disadvantage[2].

[1] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/geograph... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/01/the-fa...

Re: AI is different

#905

Post by cobbzilla »

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"?

sure and physics is all strings and pure math at the the most fundamental level; kind of misses the point.

Re: AI is different

#906

Post by sneak »

pixl97 wrote: post #735
juniperus wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm a progressive and believe in socialism. But taxation is de facto a form of unpaid labor taken by the force of the state. If you don't pay your taxes, you will go to jail. It is both robbery and slavery, and in the ideal situation, it is a benevolent sort of exchange, despite existing in the realm of slavery/robbery. In a totalitarian system, it become malevolent very quickly. It also can be seen as not benevo…

Good idea, lets make taxes optional or non enforceable. What comes next. Oh right, nobody pays. The 'government' you have collapses and then strong men become warlords and set up fiefdoms that fight each other. Eventually some authoritarian gathers up enough power to unite everyone by force and you have your totalitarian system you didn't want, after a bunch of violence you didn't want. We assume you're libertarian b…

If nobody pays them, then in a democracy they shouldn’t exist. The government derives its power from the consent of the governed. If the majority of people don’t want to be forced to pay taxes, then why do we pretend to have a democracy and compulsory taxation? It can’t be both.

What you seem to be arguing for is a dictatorship, where a majority of people don’t want something, but are forced into it anyway.

FYI the United States survived (and thrived) for well over a century without income taxes. Your theory that the state immediately collapses without income taxes doesn’t really hold up.

Re: AI is different

#907

Post by xyz_opinion »

"It was not even clear that we were so near to create machines that could understand the human language"

LLMs don't _understand_ "the human language". They dont _understand_ anything. It would be really great if everyone would keep their heads and not lose sight of this fundamental truth.

Re: AI is different

#908

Post by devmor »

simianwords wrote: post #285
raincole wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just smaller, but neglectable (in comparison). In the internet era you had to parse the questions with your own brain. You just didn't necessarily need to solve them yourself. In ChatGPT era you don't even need to read the questions. At all. The questions could be written in a language you don't understand, and you still are able generate plausible answers to them.

To a person from the 1920's which one is more impressive? The internet or chatgpt?

I don't think that's really a useful question, honestly.

If you asked a person from the 1920's to choose what was more impressive between a Microwave oven and cellular communication (both consequences of the invention of radar), they'd probably pick the oven.

Re: AI is different

#909

Post by bbqfog »

leeoniya wrote: post #901
bbqfog wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would. If something has proven results, it won't matter to me if a human is in the loop or not. Waymo has worked great for me for instance.

Waymo itself was not designed, implemented, and shipped by AI. i suspect humans had to invest millions of hours into writing the code, the tests, and validating the outputs.

It's "designing" the way it gets me to the destination without a human in the loop and I'm not bothered by that at all.

Re: AI is different

#910

Post by howtofly »

diggan wrote: post #418
howtofly wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all about human technology, which enables massive resource consumption. I should really say humans never truly produce anything in the realm of technology industry.

But that's clearly not true for every technology. Photoshop, Blender and similar creative programs are "technology", and arguably they aren't as resource-intensive as the current generative AI hype, yet humans used those to create things I personally wouldn't consider "waste".

The real issue is determining how much non-renewable resource consumption is justified for these "valuable" things? Note that we are always inclined to value ourselves too much.

I agree the things you mentioned are valuable in the very common sense and I deliberately assign them no value to the avoid the above issue.

Post reply on HN