5 ms·

I'm surprised it's only 1 in 5 to be honest. That actually makes me happy. It means not everyone is trying to build the next AI thing. There's still innovati

I'm surprised it's only 1 in 5 to be honest. That actually makes me happy. It means not everyone is trying to build the next AI thing. There's still innovation in other spaces.

johnnyanmac 1y ago
One in 5 on a news site that covers pretty much all topics is extremely saturated, though. Also, 1 in 5 being talked about is different from what is actually getting funding.
- gxs 1y ago
  Who’s to say it’s saturated? I’d say you can only say saturated relative to the historical popularity of other topics on HN throughout the years. There’s no real golden rule here Like it or not AI is not only a huge trend, it really is a paradigm shift in all sorts of aspects Would be curious to see the breakdown of this statistic
  - johnnyanmac 1y ago
    >Who’s to say it’s saturated? Well, you apparently just did. Saturation is indeed relative (or rather, on a spectrum with varying subjective lines). You can explain why it's saturated, but that still means it's saturated. >Like it or not AI is not only a huge trend, it really is a paradigm shift in all sorts of aspects Sure, so was fracking. I wasn't in this community back then, but I'd wager somehow we didn't have 1 in 5 articles about how much better society can drill oil.
    - gxs 1y ago
      I don’t know why you felt compelled to reply with a “duh are you stupid” type of response, but if that’s just your style I guess that’s fine I was literally expressing curiosity and wondering what the frequency relative to past topics and trends is and totally open to it being actually saturated I didn’t define or explain what saturated is, I said it’d be good to see those stats - you don’t know the answer as you’re obviously conjecturing about fracking popularity quantified on HN but don’t actually know anything regarding those numbers (you might now after you go look them up to reply to this, nj) And fwiw hn includes a lot of article types but it’s obviously already slanted towards tech so if you don’t see how much closer ai is related to tech and why it’d be more popular than fracking then I don’t know what to tell you If anything, I should have noticed that they are talking about show HN because that does change things but I’d still be curious to see stats Like it’s not that serious I don’t know why you got so offended Either way, not interesting in engaging with some hn smart ass atm so have a good day and feel free to have the last word Last thing I’ll say is HN is so fickle, have no clue why I’m getting downvoted Sometimes I feel like it would be great if it were required to enter a reason
      - johnnyanmac 1y ago
        >Like it’s not that serious I don’t know why you got so offended If you took my reply that way, I don't know what to say. I'll respect your caustic retort and cut off the conversation. HN isn't the place for flamewrs. >Last thing I’ll say is HN is so fickle, have no clue why I’m getting downvoted Note that I cannot downvote a direct reply. So I am not responsible for those actions.
- 4hg4ufxhy 1y ago
  This is show HN. From articles and discussions it feels more than half being about AI. As an AI doomer the interesting content on HN has plummetted.
  - binary132 1y ago
    It is horrifying. I guess that’s because that’s where a lot of VC and hypebuxx are right now, though. In 10 years either advanced AI will have eaten everything or nobody will even remember any of this.
    - teiferer 1y ago
      Hm idk ... The blockchain hype a while back was much less than the current AI hype and still most folks remember it.
    - kjkjadksj 1y ago
      Browse some job postings if you haven't for a while. Its even worse among job ads where just about everything posted out there is on working on some LLM project. It is so lopsided I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers were a lot more than 1/5 for job postings in tech.
    - msgodel 1y ago
      Optimizing for VC money rather than focusing on building something good sounds like a good way to waste time.
      - binary132 1y ago
        unless your goal is to give yourself a fat income and sell your useless company for a bunch of money to some other speculator, pretty soon you’re a “serial entrepreneur with multiple successful exits” and ready to be a CEO
  - baxtr 1y ago
    How do you define an AI doomer? I’m wondering if I’m one too. My position is that I think AI is an amazing tool, but that’s it. It’s like any other tool we humans have developed before – we use it to create more quickly, with less effort. Personally, I don’t think we’re anywhere close to achieving AGI, and I find the tech bros’ AGI fantasies appalling.
omneity 1y ago
Looking at the post, the methodology (checking the presence of a few keywords, not even including "LLM") is very simple with a lot of potential false negatives. 20% is closer to the lower bound. It could also explain the lower votes, "AI" or "GPT" being more generic terms is correlated in my personal experience with lower quality.
- mewpmewp2 1y ago
  Ironically would have been better to use LLM to classify posts.
  - omneity 1y ago
    My thoughts exactly. Or at least curate a sample of true positives and use zero shot classification with semantic embeddings + keywords.
- pvg 1y ago
  20% is closer to the lower bound I think the methodology is too poor to actually make that call. It's closer to "the 20% is kind of made up".

I'm surprised it's only 1 in 5 to be honest. That actually makes me happy. It means not everyone is trying to build the next AI thing. There's still innovation in other spaces.

johnnyanmac 1y ago

One in 5 on a news site that covers pretty much all topics is extremely saturated, though. Also, 1 in 5 being talked about is different from what is actually getting funding.

gxs 1y ago
Who’s to say it’s saturated? I’d say you can only say saturated relative to the historical popularity of other topics on HN throughout the years. There’s no real golden rule here Like it or not AI is not only a huge trend, it really is a paradigm shift in all sorts of aspects Would be curious to see the breakdown of this statistic
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  >Who’s to say it’s saturated? Well, you apparently just did. Saturation is indeed relative (or rather, on a spectrum with varying subjective lines). You can explain why it's saturated, but that still means it's saturated. >Like it or not AI is not only a huge trend, it really is a paradigm shift in all sorts of aspects Sure, so was fracking. I wasn't in this community back then, but I'd wager somehow we didn't have 1 in 5 articles about how much better society can drill oil.
  - gxs 1y ago
    I don’t know why you felt compelled to reply with a “duh are you stupid” type of response, but if that’s just your style I guess that’s fine I was literally expressing curiosity and wondering what the frequency relative to past topics and trends is and totally open to it being actually saturated I didn’t define or explain what saturated is, I said it’d be good to see those stats - you don’t know the answer as you’re obviously conjecturing about fracking popularity quantified on HN but don’t actually know anything regarding those numbers (you might now after you go look them up to reply to this, nj) And fwiw hn includes a lot of article types but it’s obviously already slanted towards tech so if you don’t see how much closer ai is related to tech and why it’d be more popular than fracking then I don’t know what to tell you If anything, I should have noticed that they are talking about show HN because that does change things but I’d still be curious to see stats Like it’s not that serious I don’t know why you got so offended Either way, not interesting in engaging with some hn smart ass atm so have a good day and feel free to have the last word Last thing I’ll say is HN is so fickle, have no clue why I’m getting downvoted Sometimes I feel like it would be great if it were required to enter a reason
    - johnnyanmac 1y ago
      >Like it’s not that serious I don’t know why you got so offended If you took my reply that way, I don't know what to say. I'll respect your caustic retort and cut off the conversation. HN isn't the place for flamewrs. >Last thing I’ll say is HN is so fickle, have no clue why I’m getting downvoted Note that I cannot downvote a direct reply. So I am not responsible for those actions.
4hg4ufxhy 1y ago
This is show HN. From articles and discussions it feels more than half being about AI. As an AI doomer the interesting content on HN has plummetted.
- binary132 1y ago
  It is horrifying. I guess that’s because that’s where a lot of VC and hypebuxx are right now, though. In 10 years either advanced AI will have eaten everything or nobody will even remember any of this.
  - teiferer 1y ago
    Hm idk ... The blockchain hype a while back was much less than the current AI hype and still most folks remember it.
  - kjkjadksj 1y ago
    Browse some job postings if you haven't for a while. Its even worse among job ads where just about everything posted out there is on working on some LLM project. It is so lopsided I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers were a lot more than 1/5 for job postings in tech.
  - msgodel 1y ago
    Optimizing for VC money rather than focusing on building something good sounds like a good way to waste time.
    - binary132 1y ago
      unless your goal is to give yourself a fat income and sell your useless company for a bunch of money to some other speculator, pretty soon you’re a “serial entrepreneur with multiple successful exits” and ready to be a CEO
- baxtr 1y ago
  How do you define an AI doomer? I’m wondering if I’m one too. My position is that I think AI is an amazing tool, but that’s it. It’s like any other tool we humans have developed before – we use it to create more quickly, with less effort. Personally, I don’t think we’re anywhere close to achieving AGI, and I find the tech bros’ AGI fantasies appalling.

omneity 1y ago

Looking at the post, the methodology (checking the presence of a few keywords, not even including "LLM") is very simple with a lot of potential false negatives. 20% is closer to the lower bound. It could also explain the lower votes, "AI" or "GPT" being more generic terms is correlated in my personal experience with lower quality.

mewpmewp2 1y ago
Ironically would have been better to use LLM to classify posts.
- omneity 1y ago
  My thoughts exactly. Or at least curate a sample of true positives and use zero shot classification with semantic embeddings + keywords.
pvg 1y ago
20% is closer to the lower bound I think the methodology is too poor to actually make that call. It's closer to "the 20% is kind of made up".