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

911–920 of 920 posts

Re: AI is different

#911

Post by vidarh »

oinfoalgo wrote: post #841
Barrin92 wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But that's because, at present, AI generated video isn't very good. It isn't good, but that's not the reason. There's a paper about 10 years ago where people used some computer system to generate Bach-like music that even Bach experts couldn't reliably tell apart, but nobody listens to bot music. (or nobody except for engine programmers watches computer chess, despite superiority. Chess is thriving more now includin…

I am a Bach fiend and the problem is BWV 1 to 1080. Why would I listen to algorithmic Bach compositions when there are so many of Bach's own work I have never listened to? Even if you did get bored of all JS music, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach has over 1000 works himself. There are also many genius baroque music composers outside the Bach family. This is true of any composer really. Any classical composer that the avera…

I don't question Bach's genius, but most baroque music doesn't interest me. Some of Bach's music I still enjoy enough that I could see myself listen to AI generated tracks made to generate music specifically similar to those pieces of Bach (and others) that I like. Though not enough that I'd seek out that in particular, and so I think the combination of what you say, with the general low-level of interest of those who would if it just happened to appear in my playlist still explains why it's not really a thing.

There are many artists, across the spectrum, like that for me, from geniuses that are just outside my own taste, to mediocre "one hit wonders" where I realise why they only had one hit when I listened to the rest of their catalogue but reallly would like more like that one hit (or handful)

And even when you like a broader selection of a composers music, there are time you might want "more of the same" of a specific piece. E.g. I quite like Beethoven, but I love the Moonlight Sonata, not just for what it is in itself, but the general systematic exploration of repetitive and slowly shifting of it.

There are other pieces by wildly different composers that invokes similar systematic exploration of patterns [1], but I'd also love to be able to hear more new "improvisations" over specific instances tuned very specifically to the aspects I like.

[1] On the extreme other "end" of these types of shiting repetitive patterns, I love Rob Hubbards Delta in-game theme of 11+ minutes of patterns repeated and iterated over as an illustration of the wide range that I like for much the same reason: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOpIbm_XX-k

You can also find a slightly less shrill modern remake, though it also adds a bit too much for my taste: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WE6av3g_8I&list=RD-WE6av3g_...

Or a somewhat more faithful arrangement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHpYBGW41gw&list=RDAHpYBGW41...

Re: AI is different

#912

Post by int_19h »

cobbzilla wrote: post #905
int_19h wrote: post #878

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If that's your take, then you need to explain how the gap between this fundamental level and the level that you're concerned with is different in those two cases.

Re: AI is different

#913

Post by anuramat »

layer8 wrote: post #712
anuramat wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even for code reviews/test generation/documentation search?

Documentation search I might agree, but that wasn’t really the context, I think. Code reviews is hit and miss, but maybe doesn’t hurt too much. They aren’t better at writing good tests than at writing good code in the first place.

> wasn't the context

yeah, I'm just curious about the vibe in general

> good tests

are there any downsides to adding "bad tests" though? as long as you keep generated tests separate, it's basically free regression testing, and if something meaningfully breaks on a refactor, you can promote it to not-actually-slop

Re: AI is different

#914

Post by Zacharias030 »

tim333 wrote: post #807
dmead wrote: post #771

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not intelligent. Hiding the training data behind gradient descent and then making attributions to the program that responds using this model is certainly artificial though. This analogy just isn't holding water.

Can't you judge on the results though rather than saying AI isn't intelligent because it uses gradient descent and biology is intelligent because it uses wet neurons?

I strongly believe that our concept of intelligence is like the „god of the gaps“ [0]. Intelligent is only what we haven’t yet explained.

Chess computers surely must be intelligent, but then deep blue was „just search“.

Go computers surely must have intelligence because it requires intuition and search is intractable, but then it’s „just CNN based pattern matching“.

Writing essays surely requires intelligence, because of the creativity, but then it‘s actually just a „stochastic parrot“.

We keep attributing intelligence to what is currently out of reach even as this set is rapidly shrinking before out eyes.

It would be better to say that intelligence is an emergent phenomenon and that behavior that seems intelligent is intelligent.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Re: AI is different

#915

Post by BuckRogers »

rootusrootus wrote: post #664
ACCount37 wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If." So far, every self-driving accident where the self-driving car was found to be at fault follows the same pattern: the car had all the sensory data it needed to make the right call, and it didn't make the right call. The bottleneck isn't in sensors.

In that case we're probably even further from self-driving cars than I'd have guessed. Adding more sensors is a lot cheaper than putting a sufficient amount of compute in a car.

He didn't really cite a source on his huge claim that it had "everything it needed" in all cases. A camera can't see in the dark, or through fog.

I want lidar. But the minimum setup without lidar would be cameras, radar, ultrasonic, GPS/GNSS + IMU.

As I told him, two things can be true at once. AI may not be good enough AND you want more sensors and data to work with.

Everyone tries to present choices like that all the time to try to make a false dichotomy. Yes I concede that it's most likely that most autonomous accidents are probably in crowded spaces or areas with a lot of cars. Simply because that's the most likely place for an accident to occur.

But who doesn't want beyond superhuman sensory data for their vehicle? Why limit to just human eyeball equivalent sensory data? It makes no sense. Unless you're just trying to defend Tesla's decision. I'm sure it can work that way. It would be smarter if the idea was to cost cut, to remove sensors AFTER AI was trained on more data and perfected. Not train a fleet on minimum input and then just beat down the strawman you created that you "don't need more". The task (training the AI) isn't done yet, so you can't really make such a sweeping claim until you succeed.

But why do I want this anyway? Give me two parachutes please, rather than one. I'm so worried about the cost that I won't spare it.

Re: AI is different

#916

Post by globnomulous »

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…

I belong to the camp for whom the capabilities of the models are irrelevant.

The largest and most successful models all appear to have been built unethically. I want nothing to do with these companies or the slime who run them, and I will leave my professional field before I'll become their unwilling user.

I don't want machines to write my code. I want to write it. I want to solve the problems and find the bugs myself. The engineers I work with who seem to rely most heavily on these tools all seem to be losing their sharpness and problem-solving ability. Many of them praise the models for making it easy to write tests..(Software engineers who treats testing with this kind of carelessness and dismissiveness should lose their jobs.)

I like what I do. I like the way I do it. The day I have no choice but do my work, in essence, by scheduling a fucking meeting with a chipper chat bot and telling it what to do will be the day I retire and start a new career. I can't imagine a drearier way to work with technology.

Re: AI is different

#917

Post by leshow »

juniperus wrote: post #210
leshow wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the same here. Calling what the west has a "free-market capitalist" system is also a lie. At every level there is massive state intervention. Most discoveries come from publicly funded work going on at research universities or from billions pushed into the defense sector that has developed all the technology we use today from computers to the internet to all the technology in your phone. That's no more a free-ma…

not to mention that most corporations in the US are owned by the public through the stock market and the arrangement of the American pension scheme, and public ownership of the means of production is one of the core tenets of communism. Every country on Earth is socialist and has been socialist for well over a century. Once you consider not just state investment in research, but centralized credit, tax-funded public…

I think you're confusing publicly available shares with actual ownership by the public in a way that's no consistent with the way any socialist would think about ownership. Stock may be available to anyone in the sense that anyone could buy shares, but actual ownership and decision-making is highly concentrated. Real public ownership would mean something quite different.

Re: AI is different

#918

Post by dmead »

tim333 wrote: post #807
dmead wrote: post #771

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not intelligent. Hiding the training data behind gradient descent and then making attributions to the program that responds using this model is certainly artificial though. This analogy just isn't holding water.

Can't you judge on the results though rather than saying AI isn't intelligent because it uses gradient descent and biology is intelligent because it uses wet neurons?

I am and that is also a problem.

Re: AI is different

#919

Post by iwontberude »

m4nu3l wrote: post #641
azemetre wrote: post #629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would this be worse than the current situation of private actors accountable to no one controlling this technology? It's not like I can convince Zuckerberg to change his ways. At least with a democratic government I have means to try and build a coalition then enact change. The alternative requires having money and that seems like an inherently undemocratic system. Why can't AIs be controlled with democratic inst…

>Why would this be worse than the current situation of private actors accountable to no one controlling this technology? It's not like I can convince Zuckerberg to change his ways. As long as Zuckerberg has no army forcing me, I'm fine with that. The issue would be whether he could breach contracts or get away with fraud. But if AI is sufficiently distributed, this is less likely to happen. >At least with a democrati…

Very defeatist but I agree it’s easier to pretend democracy doesn’t work.

Re: AI is different

#920

Post by iwontberude »

m4nu3l wrote: post #649
azemetre wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't pass the sniff test, governments generate wealth all the time. Public education, public healthcare, public research, public housing. These are all programs that generate an enormous amount of wealth and allow citizens to flourish.

>governments generate wealth all the time. Public education, public healthcare, public research, public housing. > These are all programs that generate an enormous amount of wealth and allow citizens to flourish. I thought you meant that governments generate wealth because the things you listed have value. If so, that doesn't prove they generate wealth by my argument, unless you can prove those things are more valuab…

The value of a dollar and how it can be invested and created is literally the job of the government. It’s the baseline for all wealth in the world.
Post reply on HN