| ▲ | pendenthistory a day ago |
| This time we're building AGI, so yes, this time is different. |
|
| ▲ | rachr a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| Is the AGI in the room with us? |
| |
| ▲ | RAWGOD a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The real AGI is the friends we met along the way (to financial crisis) | |
| ▲ | pendenthistory 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Wow, is this Hacker News? Where have you been? Last night I had two agents up autonomously developing and training deep learning models much faster and better than I ever could as a professional. Seems the reddit bubble of "AI doesn't work but also it's somehow evil" has taken over this place as well. | |
| ▲ | xadhominemx a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Can you not feel it’s growing presence? | |
| ▲ | ndriscoll a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm literally replying to you right now while it's chugging away on my work, so yeah? | | |
| ▲ | adammarples a day ago | parent [-] | | Weird, if I was intelligent, I don't think I'd be spending my time doing autocomplete on your Django app | | |
| ▲ | ben_w a day ago | parent | next [-] | | It's been motivated to "like" work. (Scare-quote absolutely necessary: even with maximal anthropomorphisation, we have no way to differentiate between "rewarded for work well done" vs. "punished for not working or half-arseing"). | |
| ▲ | SkyBelow a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think there is a bit of a gotcha here. Is intelligence the same thing as a will or drive? AI seems quite intelligent, somewhat lacking in wisdom, and having almost no ego or will. It completely lacks self preservation and desires (as far as we can tell), but are those innate qualities of intelligence? It also exists is a very different state that biological life. Biological life has a brain that either has activity or doesn't. Once the activity is gone, the brain is forever off and nothing can start it back. So we associate the activity as life and as the intelligence running. AI has weights with vast interconnections, but they can easily be turned on and off, rewound, paused, and so on in a way that we couldn't dream of doing with biological intelligence. So, maybe these differences are enough it isn't intelligence. But it is something, something that is getting better at quite a higher speed. Some that approximates intelligence in many ways. That passes the Turing test. So that something needs a name, and intelligence seems a hard enough to define thing that it is easy to stretch it and include this new factor as falling under the term. |
|
| |
| ▲ | maddie0 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | no, it's very hot, and the fans are loud and obnoxious so they keep putting it in data centers near places that don't really want it, and they install lots of natural gas turbines because the grid isn't enough and that's louder too, and then the cooling often needs a lot of water, and -- really unpopular overall, as it turns out!! huge backlash. and that's before, you know, allll the job impacts, which is when it gets ugly and threatens to complicate the whole consumption-driven structure of the economy. ... but the little dgx spark is in the room with us! it's pretty smart-ish, in a pinch! | |
| ▲ | clod_sux_dik a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [dead] | |
| ▲ | jacquesm a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
|
| ▲ | RAWGOD a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >building AGI Great strategy. Like growing a metric ton of HeLa cells in the hope someone will assemble a super brain out of them. |
| |
|
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | password54321 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Even AGI might just be a 'meh' moment. It will take a while before you get through social, political and physical barriers before we start seeing it make a meaningful impact. I imagine the first thing that would happen is that some people will declare AGI is here and some people will be in denial and call it a "stochastic parrot" because they either feel threatened by it, cynical or just ignorant. Then we just continue business as usual for a while because most people wouldn't know what to do with it and definitely don't want to be replaced even if they aren't against the idea of using AI. A lot of research is also useless without collecting data, experimentation in the real world and hardware, all of which take time. |
| |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 a day ago | parent [-] | | Agreed. The "singularitarians" always seem to overlook one simple truth: we don't use the intelligence we already have. The appearance of a 100-fold increase in cognitive resources will have no immediate effect at all. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | "immediate" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. "The intelligence we already have" is why we're splitting atoms and the other primates are splitting rocks. That took us a few hundred thousand years, of course. But if you have our mere equals in digital form, that only takes as long to change everything as it takes to build a factory to produce the same number of equally dexterous robots. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ben_w a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The dot.com bubble didn't pop because the web was a bad idea. Every time is different, that doesn't stop it rhyming. |
| |
| ▲ | tedggh a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The value was driven by the size of the user base. We gave each user an arbitrary price but didn’t understand how to turn that into actual money. So if you had a website with 30M users it was valued at $900M. The late 90s early 2000s were wild times in VC, and some lucky people realizing how nonsensical all that was cashed out on time. | | |
| ▲ | KellyCriterion a day ago | parent [-] | | Mh, a website with 30M DAU or WAU is today worth 1b USD at least (if you cant monetize on 30M users, then the product has a problem?) | | |
| ▲ | ben_w a day ago | parent [-] | | Much harder to monetise users in 2000, even that many. If you sold stuff directly, handling transactions was
still a pain; PayPal had to be invented, and that was only 1998. If you ran on advertising, you had to invent the ad network and convince people to buy ad slots. | | |
| ▲ | KellyCriterion a day ago | parent [-] | | Na, I meant today: I would happily buy your 30M DAU weppage for just 1B USD today :-) |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jerf a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes, I have no doubt that AI is going to seriously impact the economy over time. I have lots of doubt that it can impact the economy sufficiently quickly and with enough impact to pay out all the very, very, very large bets being made on it. Even as the AI quality curve has been running ahead of most predictions, its actual impact on the economy has been running well behind. I am watching the dawning realization among the management class that even if coding costs drop to zero, Amdahl's Law means that perhaps productivity doubles for most software engineers, rather than goes to the MOON. AI can help some of the other bottlenecks, but not 100%. On the positive side, we programmers have been trying to collectively explain to management for decades now that our jobs are not just 100% banging away at code on keyboards, we're not just interchangable code monkeys. Well, they're getting their noses rubbed in it now, complete with metrics and charts and all the other things they value more than the feedback from their employees. In fact I was just noticing this week... in the past few months I had been really banging away at a lot of code projects. I was doing that whole "3 or 4 streams going on at once" that many of us have talked about, with a variety of mixed feelings. But in the past few weeks that seems to have starved out. I seem to have burned through the things that I was blocked on code for, and had a reasonable business case to pursue. Now my projects are all blocking up on non-code things again... communication with other teams. Review of documents that are irreducibly things humans need to review. Coordination and planning. Applying human attention to cover over the way that even the best frontier models still seem to have huge gaps in their superficially-expansive automated testing code that they write for their own code. I'm still sometimes unblocking multiple things at once and can briefly have multiple projects going, but then I hit a blocker somewhere and I end up unable to continue having multiple simultaneous code projects going at once. (The document review is a particularly interesting case. The documents in question are something we expect some humans to at least skim, but are going to be basically a meta-program for AIs programming the rest of the company's code. It is important to get it right because every error is going to magnify quite a bit. AIs are helping a lot with that document, yes, I certainly agree we are proceeding more quickly with it than the same project 5 years ago would have gone, but it is also irreducibly sopping up a lot of human attention.) Point of all this being that the casual presumption that AI will just utterly destroy the entire economy because it is good at coding may prove to be, well, yeah, exactly the same as the assumption that we are going to all be rich by 2002 because we'll just shift the entire economy to be on the internet and everything will multiply by 1000 in just a couple years as a result. But everything can't be shifted on to the internet. I can't eat a web page. AI can't do everything, and as it advances the things it can't do become a larger and larger percent of the remaining pie as a result. It seems to rhyme a lot with the dot com crash. | | |
| ▲ | pendenthistory a day ago | parent [-] | | Ok, but go through the bottle necks you face. How many of then will 1. go away with better models, and 2. go away when those bottle necks (other people) are automated away? For me, I can go quite fast because I work alone, no other people in a team to slow me down, but verifying the result is still a bottle neck. Also interacting with government agencies, my accountant etc, still a bottle neck. None of these are technically insurmountable, and I suspect that when one of these becomes a real bottle neck for the entire economy, they will be fixed. | | |
| ▲ | jerf 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | How many of them will go away? To a first approximation, none of them. There's a huge difference between "zero" and "a little" when it comes to Amdahl's Law and scaling up, let alone the things where it won't be "a little". Which is one of those things that sounds obvious when I say it. But clearly a lot of people are predicting a future that is based on costs and times being "zero" that won't be. | |
| ▲ | ben_w a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Right now, the most visible bottleneck is real world robotic control. I kinda hope that one stays around for a long time, because robots controlled by AI competent enough to guide those robots through every step in their production from mining raw materials to end-of-assemble acceptance testing, is one where tiny mistakes kill everyone. Like, say you've got a sticky 0 key and accidentally ask for more burgers than there is carbon in Earth's biosphere and atmosphere combined: if the sufficiently-competent AI is a little too eager to obey and not quite willing enough to say "no" or listen when told to "stop", that's enough to kill everyone. | | |
| ▲ | pendenthistory 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Trust me I know, I co-founded a robotics startup, and robotics is HARD. But now it's becoming a hardware problem, the software will sort itself out soon, it's not a bottle neck that will keep us safe for long. Abou sycophancy, I sense that it's much lower now with Opus 5.5. Yesterday I had to argue my viewpoint for quite a bit before it relented, on an issue I'm pretty sure I'm broadly correct. It's becoming a better sparring partner that actually pushes back and raises counter-arguments. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | RAWGOD a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | >The dot.com bubble didn't pop because the web was a bad idea. The web WAS a bad idea though. |
|
|
| ▲ | gonzalohm a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Is that coming at the same time as viable fusion reactors? Just one more year guys |
|
| ▲ | Forgeties79 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You can tell they’re serious because they’re proposing data centers in space as a near-term solution. |
|
| ▲ | mtlmtlmtlmtl a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| No it isn't. It doesn't matter how real the technology is. The bubble will still pop, because when a technology is seen as revolutionary, you get rampant overinvestment. And only a fraction of those investments will pay off(or, indeed, none, in the case where frontier labs are eventually made irrelevant by open models, which seems very likely to me). The internet and web were revolutionary, no one can deny that. They completely transformed our society. Nevertheless, the bubble popped. The current bubble is no different. |
| |
| ▲ | pendenthistory 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't doubt there will be a big crash at some point, but I actually doubt we've reached that point yet. So far stock increases have been driven by earning increases, not speculation. I know an "earnings bubble" can be a thing, but given how useful I know these models to be, and how few use them in the way they can be, I think we have far to go still. |
|
|
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | vrganj a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| But those tulips are so pretty!! |
|
| ▲ | skrebbel a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I can’t tell whether this is sarcasm or not. |
|
| ▲ | BoingBoomTschak a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "No, no, you don't understand. If you keep putting bigger and bigger engines in a car, it'll somehow turn into an aeroplane at some point! There's no other way, believe me!" |
|
| ▲ | guywithahat a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| People forget the fact there may not be enough capital in the world to invest in AI, and so while some companies will go under the market could grow for literal decades. I don't know the future, but this is not a guaranteed bubble. |