6 ms·

Yet we're what? 5 years into "AI will replace programmers in 6 months"? 10 years into "we'll have self driving cars next year" We're 10 years into "it's just

Yet we're what? 5 years into "AI will replace programmers in 6 months"? 10 years into "we'll have self driving cars next year" We're 10 years into "it's just completely obvious that within 5 years deep learning is going to replace radiologists" Moravec's paradox strikes again and again. But this time it's different and it's completely obvious now, right?

tsunamifury 1y ago
[flagged]
- godelski 1y ago
  I named 3 things... You're going to have to specify which 2 you think happened
- croes 1y ago
  Where did it happen? They try it, but it’s not reliable
- seanhunter 1y ago
  I consulted a radiologist more than 5 years after Hinton said that it was completely obvious that radiologists would be replaced by AI in 5 years. I strongly suspect they were not an AI. Why do I think this? 1) They smelled slightly funny. 2) They got the diagnosis wrong. OK maybe #2 is a red herring. But I stand by the other reason.
  - HDThoreaun 1y ago
    I know a radiologist and talk a decent bit about AI usage in the field. Every radiologist today is making heavy use of AI. They pre screen everything and from what I understand it has led to massive productivity gains. It hasnt led to job losses yet but theres so much money on the line it really feels to me like we're just waiting for the straw that broke the camels back. No one wants to be the first to fully get rid of radiologists but once one hospital does the rest will quickly follow suit.
    - lazide 1y ago
      One word - liability.
  - fulafel 1y ago
    The quote appears to be “We should stop training radiologists now, it’s just completely obvious within five years deep learning is going to do better than radiologists.” So there's some room for interpretation, the weaker interpretation is less radical (that AI could beat humans in radiology tasks in 5 years).
- hengheng 1y ago
  I have a fusion reactor to sell to you.
  - laserlight 1y ago
    Some people are ahead of you by 3.5 years [0]: > Helion has a clear path to net electricity by 2024, and has a long-term goal of delivering electricity for 1 cent per kilowatt-hour. (!) [0] https://blog.samaltman.com/helion https://blog.samaltman.com/helion
    - antonvs 1y ago
      You're missing the big picture. Helion can still make their goal. Once they have a working fusion reactor they can use the energy to build a time machine.
      - laserlight 1y ago
        Of course, silly me. I should put more practice time into 4D chess.
    - alphager 1y ago
      We're halfway into 2025 and you're cutting a goal they should have reached by 2024. Did they reach that goal?
      - laserlight 1y ago
        They didn't reach that goal. Why would they bother reaching an easier goal when they could shoot for a bigger one? /s Their new goal is to build a fusion plant by 2028 [0]. [0] https://observer.com/2025/01/sam-altman-nuclear-fusion-startup-fundraising/ https://observer.com/2025/01/sam-altman-nuclear-fusion-start...
- apwell23 1y ago
  did you by any chance send money to nigerian prince ?
jjani 1y ago
> Yet we're what? 5 years into "AI will replace programmers in 6 months"? Realistically, we're 2.5 years into it at most.
- hansmayer 1y ago
  No, the hype cycle started around 2019, slowly at first. The technology this is built with is more like 20 years old, so no, we are not 2.5 years at most really.
  - micromacrofoot 1y ago
    we're 2.5 years into the current hype trend, no way was this mainstream until at least 2022
    - godelski 1y ago
      GPT3 dropped in 2020. That's when it hit mainstream
      - Auracle 1y ago
        GPT3 wasn't that impressive. GPT 3.5 is when it became "oh wow, this could really change things," and that was 2022.
        hansmayer 1y ago
        It certainly made a heavy impression on this tiny new outlet called NYT in 2020 : https://archive.is/QtpMT https://archive.is/QtpMT
      - micromacrofoot 1y ago
        I feel like no one was really talking about this stuff until midjourney and dalle, but I can agree to disagree
      - famouswaffles 1y ago
roenxi 1y ago
As far as I've seen we appear to already have self driving vehicles, the main barriers are legal and regulatory concerns rather than the tech. If a company wanted to put a car on the road that beetles around by itself there aren't any crazy technical challenges to doing that - the issue is even if it was safer than a human driver the company would have a lot of liability problems.
- apwell23 1y ago
  > the main barriers are legal and regulatory concerns rather than the tech they have failed in sfo, phoenix and other cities that rolled red carpet for them
  - roenxi 1y ago
    Pretty solid evidence that self driving cars already exist though.
    - pydry 1y ago
      I remember one reason phoenix was chosen as a trial location coz it was supposed to be one of the easiest places to drive. It's pretty damning that it failed there.
      - jkestner 1y ago
        Yeah, it’s a big grid with wide streets. Did it fail there? If so I imagine it’s just due to lack of business—there are almost no taxis in Phoenix. Mostly just from the airport.
    - laserlight 1y ago
      When people say “we'll have self-driving cars next year”, I understand that self-driving cars will be widespread in the developed world and accessible to those who pay a premium. Given the status quo, I find it pointless to discuss the semantics of whether they exist or not.
tim333 1y ago
Four years into people mocking "we'll have self driving cars next year" while they are on the street daily driving around SF.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- godelski 1y ago
  I'm quoting Elon. I don't care about SF. I care about what I can but as a typical American. Not as an enthusiast in one of the most technologically advanced cities on the planet
  - horns4lyfe 1y ago
    They’re in other cities too…
    - godelski 1y ago
      Other cities still isn't available to average American. You read the words but missed their meaning
      - Jotra7 1y ago
        [dead]
- xorcist 1y ago
  They are self driving the same way a tram or subway can be self driving. They traffic a tightly bounded designated area. They're not competing with human drivers. Still a marvel of human engineering, just quite expensive compared with other forms of public transport. It just doesn't compete in the same space and likely never will.
  - tim333 1y ago
    They are literally competing with human uber drivers in the area they operate and also having a much lower crash and injury rate. I admit they don't operate everywhere - only certain routes. Still they are undoubtedly cars that drive themselves. I imagine it'll be the same with AGI. We'll have robots / AIs that are much smarter than the average human and people will be saying they don't count because humans win X Factor or something.
hn_throwaway_99 1y ago
I basically agree with you, and I think the thing that is missing from a bunch of responses that disagree is that it seems fairly apparent now that AI has largely hit a brick wall in terms of the benefits of scaling. That is, most folks were pretty astounded by the gains you could get from just stuffing more training data into these models, but like someone who argues a 15 year old will be 50 feet tall based on the last 5 years' growth rate, people who are still arguing that past growth rates will continue apace don't seem to be honest (or aware) to me. I'm not at all saying that it's impossible some improvement will be discovered in the future that allows AI progress to continue at a breakneck speed, but I am saying that the "progress will only accelerate" conclusion, based primarily on the progress since 2017 or so, is faulty reasoning.
- godelski 1y ago
  > it seems fairly apparent now that AI has largely hit a brick wall in terms of the benefits of scaling What's annoying is plenty of us (researchers) predicted this and got laughed at. Now that it's happening, it's just quiet. I don't know about the rest, but I spoke up because I didn't want to hit a brick wall, I want to keep going! I still want to keep going! But if accurate predictions (with good explanations) aren't a reason to shift resource allocation then we just keep making the same mistake over and over. We let the conmen come in and people who get too excited by success that they get blind to pitfalls. And hey, I'm not saying give me money. This account is (mostly) anonymous. There's plenty of people that made accurate predictions and tried working in other directions but never got funding to test how methods scale up. We say there's no alternatives but there's been nothing else that's been given a tenth of the effort. Apples and oranges...
  - antonvs 1y ago
    > What's annoying is plenty of us (researchers) predicted this and got laughed at. Now that it's happening, it's just quiet. You need to model the business world and management more like a flock of sheep being herded by forces that mostly don't have to do with what actually is going to happen in future. It makes a lot more sense.
hansmayer 1y ago
100% this. I always argue that groundbreaking technologies are clearly groundbreaking from the start. It is almost a bit like a film, if you have to struggle to get into it in the first few minutes, you may as well spare yourself watching the rest.
gardenhedge 1y ago
Over ten years for the we'll have self driving car spiel

tsunamifury 1y ago

[flagged]

godelski 1y ago
I named 3 things... You're going to have to specify which 2 you think happened
croes 1y ago
Where did it happen? They try it, but it’s not reliable
seanhunter 1y ago
I consulted a radiologist more than 5 years after Hinton said that it was completely obvious that radiologists would be replaced by AI in 5 years. I strongly suspect they were not an AI. Why do I think this? 1) They smelled slightly funny. 2) They got the diagnosis wrong. OK maybe #2 is a red herring. But I stand by the other reason.
- HDThoreaun 1y ago
  I know a radiologist and talk a decent bit about AI usage in the field. Every radiologist today is making heavy use of AI. They pre screen everything and from what I understand it has led to massive productivity gains. It hasnt led to job losses yet but theres so much money on the line it really feels to me like we're just waiting for the straw that broke the camels back. No one wants to be the first to fully get rid of radiologists but once one hospital does the rest will quickly follow suit.
  - lazide 1y ago
    One word - liability.
- fulafel 1y ago
  The quote appears to be “We should stop training radiologists now, it’s just completely obvious within five years deep learning is going to do better than radiologists.” So there's some room for interpretation, the weaker interpretation is less radical (that AI could beat humans in radiology tasks in 5 years).
hengheng 1y ago
I have a fusion reactor to sell to you.
- laserlight 1y ago
  Some people are ahead of you by 3.5 years [0]: > Helion has a clear path to net electricity by 2024, and has a long-term goal of delivering electricity for 1 cent per kilowatt-hour. (!) [0] https://blog.samaltman.com/helion https://blog.samaltman.com/helion
  - antonvs 1y ago
    You're missing the big picture. Helion can still make their goal. Once they have a working fusion reactor they can use the energy to build a time machine.
    - laserlight 1y ago
      Of course, silly me. I should put more practice time into 4D chess.
  - alphager 1y ago
    We're halfway into 2025 and you're cutting a goal they should have reached by 2024. Did they reach that goal?
    - laserlight 1y ago
      They didn't reach that goal. Why would they bother reaching an easier goal when they could shoot for a bigger one? /s Their new goal is to build a fusion plant by 2028 [0]. [0] https://observer.com/2025/01/sam-altman-nuclear-fusion-startup-fundraising/ https://observer.com/2025/01/sam-altman-nuclear-fusion-start...
apwell23 1y ago
did you by any chance send money to nigerian prince ?

jjani 1y ago

> Yet we're what? 5 years into "AI will replace programmers in 6 months"? Realistically, we're 2.5 years into it at most.

hansmayer 1y ago
No, the hype cycle started around 2019, slowly at first. The technology this is built with is more like 20 years old, so no, we are not 2.5 years at most really.
- micromacrofoot 1y ago
  we're 2.5 years into the current hype trend, no way was this mainstream until at least 2022
  - godelski 1y ago
    GPT3 dropped in 2020. That's when it hit mainstream
    - Auracle 1y ago
      GPT3 wasn't that impressive. GPT 3.5 is when it became "oh wow, this could really change things," and that was 2022.
      - hansmayer 1y ago
        It certainly made a heavy impression on this tiny new outlet called NYT in 2020 : https://archive.is/QtpMT https://archive.is/QtpMT
    - micromacrofoot 1y ago
      I feel like no one was really talking about this stuff until midjourney and dalle, but I can agree to disagree
    - famouswaffles 1y ago

roenxi 1y ago

As far as I've seen we appear to already have self driving vehicles, the main barriers are legal and regulatory concerns rather than the tech. If a company wanted to put a car on the road that beetles around by itself there aren't any crazy technical challenges to doing that - the issue is even if it was safer than a human driver the company would have a lot of liability problems.

apwell23 1y ago
> the main barriers are legal and regulatory concerns rather than the tech they have failed in sfo, phoenix and other cities that rolled red carpet for them
- roenxi 1y ago
  Pretty solid evidence that self driving cars already exist though.
  - pydry 1y ago
    I remember one reason phoenix was chosen as a trial location coz it was supposed to be one of the easiest places to drive. It's pretty damning that it failed there.
    - jkestner 1y ago
      Yeah, it’s a big grid with wide streets. Did it fail there? If so I imagine it’s just due to lack of business—there are almost no taxis in Phoenix. Mostly just from the airport.
  - laserlight 1y ago
    When people say “we'll have self-driving cars next year”, I understand that self-driving cars will be widespread in the developed world and accessible to those who pay a premium. Given the status quo, I find it pointless to discuss the semantics of whether they exist or not.

tim333 1y ago

Four years into people mocking "we'll have self driving cars next year" while they are on the street daily driving around SF.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
godelski 1y ago
I'm quoting Elon. I don't care about SF. I care about what I can but as a typical American. Not as an enthusiast in one of the most technologically advanced cities on the planet
- horns4lyfe 1y ago
  They’re in other cities too…
  - godelski 1y ago
    Other cities still isn't available to average American. You read the words but missed their meaning
    - Jotra7 1y ago
      [dead]
xorcist 1y ago
They are self driving the same way a tram or subway can be self driving. They traffic a tightly bounded designated area. They're not competing with human drivers. Still a marvel of human engineering, just quite expensive compared with other forms of public transport. It just doesn't compete in the same space and likely never will.
- tim333 1y ago
  They are literally competing with human uber drivers in the area they operate and also having a much lower crash and injury rate. I admit they don't operate everywhere - only certain routes. Still they are undoubtedly cars that drive themselves. I imagine it'll be the same with AGI. We'll have robots / AIs that are much smarter than the average human and people will be saying they don't count because humans win X Factor or something.

hn_throwaway_99 1y ago

I basically agree with you, and I think the thing that is missing from a bunch of responses that disagree is that it seems fairly apparent now that AI has largely hit a brick wall in terms of the benefits of scaling. That is, most folks were pretty astounded by the gains you could get from just stuffing more training data into these models, but like someone who argues a 15 year old will be 50 feet tall based on the last 5 years' growth rate, people who are still arguing that past growth rates will continue apace don't seem to be honest (or aware) to me. I'm not at all saying that it's impossible some improvement will be discovered in the future that allows AI progress to continue at a breakneck speed, but I am saying that the "progress will only accelerate" conclusion, based primarily on the progress since 2017 or so, is faulty reasoning.

godelski 1y ago
> it seems fairly apparent now that AI has largely hit a brick wall in terms of the benefits of scaling What's annoying is plenty of us (researchers) predicted this and got laughed at. Now that it's happening, it's just quiet. I don't know about the rest, but I spoke up because I didn't want to hit a brick wall, I want to keep going! I still want to keep going! But if accurate predictions (with good explanations) aren't a reason to shift resource allocation then we just keep making the same mistake over and over. We let the conmen come in and people who get too excited by success that they get blind to pitfalls. And hey, I'm not saying give me money. This account is (mostly) anonymous. There's plenty of people that made accurate predictions and tried working in other directions but never got funding to test how methods scale up. We say there's no alternatives but there's been nothing else that's been given a tenth of the effort. Apples and oranges...
- antonvs 1y ago
  > What's annoying is plenty of us (researchers) predicted this and got laughed at. Now that it's happening, it's just quiet. You need to model the business world and management more like a flock of sheep being herded by forces that mostly don't have to do with what actually is going to happen in future. It makes a lot more sense.

hansmayer 1y ago

100% this. I always argue that groundbreaking technologies are clearly groundbreaking from the start. It is almost a bit like a film, if you have to struggle to get into it in the first few minutes, you may as well spare yourself watching the rest.

gardenhedge 1y ago

Over ten years for the we'll have self driving car spiel