| ▲ | david-gpu a day ago |
| Did you experience the popularization of the WWW? There were massive disagreements even among smart tech-savvy people. We even had a stock market boom and just cycle associated with it. Funnily, none of that mattered. What mattered is that enough ordinary people on the street found it useful, both for personal and business reasons. Ask yourself: are regular people using this tech, either as producers or consumers? And remember that this is the least powerful that it will ever be. |
|
| ▲ | entropy47 a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| It's very hard to disagree with the point that it will get more powerful, perhaps in uenxpected ways. I don't know that the average regular person is using this tech as a producer, and while it's hard not to consume it - I don't know if anybody consuming it really wants to. I'm in a bubble of people where we give it a lot more mindshare, but e.g my electrician is aware of the tech, knows what it does, and doesn't really care. I think you're right that if it could manage his books, help him rewire a switchboard, order inventory for him etc that would be very different. |
| |
| ▲ | ipsod a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > I don't know if anybody consuming it really wants to. You don't know of people who ask LLMs questions? Or just chat with it for fun and to learn? Maybe your electrician isn't interested. A pharmacist and a nurse I talk to are. Virtually everybody I've talked to uses it to some degree or another. I think it'll soon replace Alexa/Siri for most people, as well as google search. That's pretty far from nobody. | | |
| ▲ | HarlequinHair a day ago | parent [-] | | I think the first parent post all this conversation originated from, pointed that LLMs are not groundbreaking inventions. If people use it to replace voice assistants or search engines, you can see how this new invention is not really adding anything you already hadn't. AIs in general are very useful, but apart from the campaign they did to change everything's name into AI (also well known algorithms and "old" machine learning), if you look at all the possible applications, LLMs are possibly the least useful of them. Especially if you take into account how much money they spent, and how much effort they put to shove it in your throat. If a technology is convenient for people, you shouldn't need to insist to make people use it. If it is convenient, people will use it in a natural way. | | |
| ▲ | ipsod a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > If a technology is convenient for people, you shouldn't need to insist to make people use it. This is like the railroads, and the tracks have been laid. Because of the enormous cost, it can't be left to "hope they'll find it useful," and has to be pushed like crazy, or we're going to be left with a train system with no goods or passengers, and no path into the future. Personally, having AI as an intelligence I can call like it's a library from apps I build... and to help build those apps... I feel that the future is as bright as the sun. I've always believed in software, but I feel like a chef that's just discovered salt and butter. I don't know what it means for the world stage, but I believe that software is the highest art, and it's just had an incalculably massive buff. As an artist, I am stoked. The possibilities for creation of good things are limitless, and if you can't see that, I can't help you. However, I wouldn't necessarily invest in AI companies. I don't know how this all fits into the rest of the world, except that I believe in my own ability to make products, same as I ever did, but now with AI. | | |
| ▲ | HarlequinHair 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | > This is like the railroads, and the tracks have been laid. Except that for railroads I don't need people to convince me about how/when/why it can be useful. Railroads came out to solve an issue we had (and then it evolved).
LLMs are not giving us any new solution, just different speed (better) and quality (worse) to solve things we co&ld already solve. It's basically the same concept as fast fashion.
Worse quality, more speed, possibly more economic.
You can change your wardrobe possibly every year, but you will never wear good quality clothes. Now you can write code at impressive speed, but it is worse in quality, and you need to review it more often than "normal" code. AI code should always be fully reviewed and put into the correct context to make it useful, otherwise long term problems will void short term benefits | | |
| ▲ | ipsod 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Nobody convinced me AI was useful. At this point, nobody could convince me it wasn't - it's like going from whittling stuff out of wood to having a kitted-out fully-manned machine shop. It's clear from your words you lack experience and skill in this area - you've only got opinions. | | |
| ▲ | HarlequinHair 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | My "only" experience happen to be coding 5 days a week with agentic AI, plus reviews. Only because I do not share your point of view it doesn't mean I lack experience or skills. You are pretty fast at jumping at conclusions. | | |
| ▲ | ipsod 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I guess we might actually have similar feelings, except, you say "only speed", and "only economics". Only time and only money. As if those aren't two of the most valuable currencies on earth. | |
| ▲ | ipsod 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > You are pretty fast at jumping at conclusions. Yeah, because I can see some of my own thoughts and experience from a long time ago in your words, and my experience tells me loud and clear that they're outdated and wrong. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | david-gpu 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If people use [the Internet] to replace [Sears catalogs] or [paper mail], you can see how this new invention is not really adding anything you already hadn't. | | |
| ▲ | HarlequinHair 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | It would have been a good counter-example, if only internet wasn't:
- adding encryption
- removing processing time
- removing geography
- removing logistic issues
... and much more at a convenient price. They basically invented teleportation for sear catalogs and paper mail, can you see how this is different?
Also, Internet was built to solve a problem we had, and it solved it beautifully and at reasonable prices. I for sure can understand it introduced different issues, buy this is another topic. | | |
| ▲ | david-gpu 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | You can ask LLMs questions about an immense variety of subjects, and they can give you customized explanations to those questions. It is as if an acquaintance of yours had digested Wikipedia and tens of thousands of books and had infinite patience to help you understand whatever you are curious about. And while the answers are not going to be picture perfect every time, just like Wikipedia or a well-educated acquaintance, they will be generally very useful. I understand exactly what the Internet of the 90s did and did not do, because I was there to witness it myself. I had these same types of conversations with naysayers back then. Guess who was right? | | |
| ▲ | HarlequinHair 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Maybe you have all the means to avoid sycophancy bias and other flaws LLMs have by design, this doesn't mean that everyone can use it the same way. The fact the you were right in a previous topic, doesn't grant you objective truth.
You have your strong opinions on AI, and that's ok.
Fortunately not everyone has to share the same idea. If you think LLMs can do better than you, feel free to use them in production and bring them to work with you, it's your choice.
Do not force others do the same, tho. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | calgoo a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | From what i hear in a small subset of local small businesses is that they are using it for backoffice stuff, like taxes, finding legal codes, organization, planning etc. |
|
|
| ▲ | maxnevermind a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Funnily, none of that mattered. What mattered is that enough ordinary people on the street found it useful, both for personal and business reasons. Broad economic impact due to Internet boom in the the US came from 2 main categories:
1) New huge internet enabled tech companies appeared(Amazon, Google, Meta etc.), all created their own products, all were build on reliable foundational technology. LLMs is not a reliable foundational technology.
2) Existing legacy companies could utilize internet to connect their teams/departments/offices though a bunch of new software which were build on reliable foundational technology. LLMs is not a reliable foundational technology. > And remember that this is the least powerful that it will ever be. This mantra is being repeated but "serious LLMs's issues" I described are still there and will be there because they are part of how LLMs are built and work. Without addressing those you can't build products but LLMs's capability as a personal productivity tool will keep rising, yes. The "best" possible outcome of LLMs to a broader economy might be that a smaller group of experts will be able to do the job in companies due to boost of their personal productivity and a bunch of people will be freed up(laid off) and they will have to go and work on something else and thus a boost of productivity in the economy. But it seems it won't be any low hanging fruits(problems to solve) this time as it was during the internet era. It is not like we out of problems: new cancer treatments, self driving cars, nuclear fusion, modular nuclear reactors etc. There is a huge value to capture there, here is the thing though, those are hard problems, it is not a new TikTok, gmail, netflix etc. Yes, people will have LLMs now but can we actually start solving hard problems with them? Because it might be the case that a gravy train of the last few decades for Silicon Valley is over, no more useless internet enabled services, no more billion dollar companies built on just applying internet to yet another thing and producing another digital product. People's free time is limited, its redistribution across digital services will not grow the economy, global internet penetration is already pretty high and won't grow that much, so there might not be much value to capture there. |
|
| ▲ | aa-jv a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >Did you experience the popularization of the WWW? There were massive disagreements even among smart tech-savvy people. We even had a stock market boom and just cycle associated with it. In the early phase of the Internet envelope, we all wanted to build the real Internet and destroy the AOL's and Compuserves' .. but now the Internet has turned into a mass of AOL's and Compuserves. I think the same thing is happening with the silo'ization of LLM's. People don't want to have to use the "AOL of LLM's" for things - they want to build out their own infrastructure and have a pool of local LLM's (where once it was the company's own modem pool, etc.) It is, oddly enough, parallel with the original arguments in the 70's and 80's regarding supercomputers versus personal computers, or the cloud versus locally managed resources, etc. We are still fighting this battle, just with higher bandwidth. Do we operate a terminal with a fixed window into a bigger computer, or do we operate a heavier local computer with a proper interface? |
|
| ▲ | kakacik a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Most people I know, blue and white collar up to and including surgeons and IT folks, use it as better search. My wife is a GP, and all she would ever need is a reliable speech to voice recognition of medical jargon, in french. Not 98%, not almost there, just there. Most people don't live in IT echo chambers like HN. For them, chatgpts are just another online gimmick that saves a bit of time vs googling things, or puts together some paperwork quicker, and thats it. For me, I can see potential beyond but are largely unmoved by it. The price to pay, in fucking up our environment, losing skills and/or losing skills to build skills, making large swaths of population unemployed with no replacement in sight, seems much more like devolution and net loss. Extremely few winners and big bunch of losers. Very happy to be wrong here of course, but only time will tell and neither you nor me know for sure. |
| |
| ▲ | roel_v a day ago | parent [-] | | How can it be at the same time "a better search" and also "making large swaths of population unemployed with no replacement in sight" ? | | |
| ▲ | stevepotter a day ago | parent [-] | | Because it’s so powerful and versatile. The other day my wife took a picture of our living room and chathgpt picked out the perfect rug. That’s both a better search and avoided, say, an interior decorator. In that scenario it’s kinda both. | | |
| ▲ | roel_v a day ago | parent [-] | | But only a small part of AI applications are that search-like. I mean we could even argue if this is still only search, but that's semantics and boring. But even if we would, there are a lot more applications than pure search. So the GP's original claim that it's just an improved form of something that doesn't put people out of a job, and also puts large amounts of people out of a job, doesn't make sense. Framing tax advise as "yeah it's just a better way to search tax codes" is in the same boat. It's such a massive improvement of both searching and synthesizing that it's a bit weird to call it that. Like saying a 2026 car is just an improvement of a Model T. | | |
| ▲ | stevepotter 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think we agree. I think we’ve barely touched the surface on its applications. It’s digitized reasoning. That’s hard to wrap one’s head around. My hope is that the vertical applications that gain traction aren’t from a handful of companies. |
|
|
|
|