4 ms·

These experiments always seems to end up requiring the hand-holding of a human at top, seemingly breaking down the idea behind the experiment in the first place

These experiments always seems to end up requiring the hand-holding of a human at top, seemingly breaking down the idea behind the experiment in the first place. Seems better to spend the time and energy on finding better ways for AI to work hand-in-hand with the user, empowering them, rather than trying to find the areas where we could replace humans with as little quality degradation as possible. That whole part feels like a race to the bottom, instead of making it easier for the ones involved to do what they do.

LoganDark 10mo ago
Using the example from the article, I guess restaurant managers need handholding by the chefs and servers, seemingly breaking down the idea behind restaurants, yet restaurants still exist. The point, I think, is that even if LLMs can't directly perform physical operations, they can still make decisions about what operations are to be performed, and through that achieve a result. And I also don't think it's fair to say there's no point just because there's a person prompting and interpreting the LLM. That happens all the time with real people, too.
- embedding-shape 10mo ago
  > And I also don't think it's fair to say there's no point just because there's a person prompting and interpreting the LLM. That happens all the time with real people, too. Yes, what I'm trying to get at, it's much more vital we nail down the "person prompting and interpreting the LLM" part instead of focusing so much on the "autonomous robots doing everything".
  - LoganDark 10mo ago
    I feel you're still missing the point of the experiment... The entire thing was based on how Claude felt empowering -- "I felt like I could do anything with software from my terminal"... It's not at all about autonomous robots... It's about what someone can achieve with the assistance of LLMs, in this case Claude
    - embedding-shape 10mo ago
      I think we might have read two different articles.
      - LoganDark 10mo ago
        The article I read was linked at the top of the submission ("Read the full story")
santadays 10mo ago
> I can definitely believe that in 2026 someone at their computer with access to money can send the right emails and make the right bank transfers to get real people to grow corn for you. I think this is the new turing test. Once it's been passed we will have AGI and all the Sam Altmans of the world will be proven correct. (This isn't a perfect test obviously, but neither was the turing test) If it fails to pass we will still have what jdthedisciple pointed out > a non-farmer, is doing professional farmer's work all on his own without prior experience I am actually curious how many people really believe AGI will happen. Theres alot of talk about it, but when can I ask claude code to build me a browser from scratch and I get a browser from scratch. Or when can I ask claude code to grow corn and claude code grows corn. Never? In 2027? In 2035? In the year 3000? HN seems rife with strong opinions on this, but does anybody really know?
- bayindirh 10mo ago
  Researchers love to reduce everything into formulae, and believe that when they have the right set of formulae, they can simulate something as-is. Hint: It doesn't work that way. Another hint: I'm a researcher. Yes, we have found a great way to compress and remix the information we scrape from the internet, and even with some randomness, looks like we can emit the right set of tokens which makes sense, or search the internet the right way and emit these search results, but AGI is more than that. There's so much tacit knowledge and implicit computation coming from experience, emotions, sensory inputs and from our own internal noise. AI models doesn't work on those. LLMs consume language and emit language. The information embedded in these languages are available to them, but most of the tacit knowledge is just an empty shell of the thing we try to define with the limited set of words. It's the same with anything we're trying to replace humans in real world, in daily tasks (self-driving, compliance check, analysis, etc.). AI is missing the magic grains we can't put out as words or numbers or anything else. The magic smoke, if you pardon the term. This is why no amount of documentation can replace a knowledgeable human. ...or this is why McLaren Technology Center's aim of "being successful without depending on any specific human by documenting everything everyone knows" is an impossible goal. Because like it or not, intuition is real, and AI lacks it. Irrelevant of how we derive or build that intuition.
pixl97 10mo ago
>ather than trying to find the areas where we could replace humans with as little quality degradation as possible The particular problem here is it is very likely that the easiest people to replace with AI are the ones making the most money and doing the least work. Needless to say those people are going to fight a lot harder to remain employed than the average lower level person has political capital to accomplish. >seems to end up requiring the hand-holding of a human at top, I was born on a farm and know quite a bit about the process, but in the process of trying to get corn grown from seed to harvest I would still contact/contract a set of skilled individuals to do it for me. One thing I've come to realize in the race to achieve AGI, the humans involved don't want AGI, they want ASI. A single model that can do what an expert can, in every field, in a short period of time is not what I would consider a general intelligence at all.
- ep103 10mo ago
  Ai hype is predicated on the popular idea that it can easily automate someone else's job, because that job they know nothing about is easy, but my job is safe from ai because it is so nuanced.
  - lighthouse1212 10mo ago
    [dead]
  - Hammershaft 10mo ago
    I don't think this describes all or most AI hype, but it definitely describes Marc Andreessen when he said VCs would be the last ones automated.
- xmprt 10mo ago
  I didn't think we'd ever see the day where we started enshitifying labor
- nerdsniper 10mo ago
  > the ones making the most money and doing the least work. Needless to say those people are going to fight a lot harder to remain employed than the average lower level person has political capital to accomplish. They don't have to "fight" to stay employed, anyone with sufficient money is effectively self-employed. It's not going to be illegal to spend your own money running your own business if that's how you want to spend your money. Anyone "making the most money and doing the least work" has enough money to start a variety of businesses if they get fired from their current job.
mring33621 10mo ago
"...where we could replace humans with as little quality degradation as possible" This is pretty much the whole goal of capitalism since the 1800's
neya 10mo ago
>That whole part feels like a race to the bottom, instead of making it easier for the ones involved to do what they do. This is what people said while transitioning from horse carriages to combustion engines, steam engines to modern day locomotives. Like it or not, the race to the bottom has already begun. We will always find a way to work around it, like we have done time and again.
- shimman 10mo ago
  lol this is not the same at all. If these tools were so good as they claim they wouldn't be struggling so hard to make money or sell them. The fact that they have to be force fed into people is all the proof you need that this is an unsustainable bubble. Something to keep in mind that unless you can destroy something the system is not democratic and people are realizing how undemocratic this game truly is.
micromacrofoot 10mo ago
yes exactly, comma.ai is making a driver assistance product and this is similar to their stance... which is refreshing they know they won't be able to make a fully autonomous product while navigating liability and all sorts of problems so they're using technology to make drivers more comfortable while still in control none of this hype about full autonomy, just realistic ideas about how things can be easier for the humans in control

LoganDark 10mo ago

Using the example from the article, I guess restaurant managers need handholding by the chefs and servers, seemingly breaking down the idea behind restaurants, yet restaurants still exist. The point, I think, is that even if LLMs can't directly perform physical operations, they can still make decisions about what operations are to be performed, and through that achieve a result. And I also don't think it's fair to say there's no point just because there's a person prompting and interpreting the LLM. That happens all the time with real people, too.

embedding-shape 10mo ago
> And I also don't think it's fair to say there's no point just because there's a person prompting and interpreting the LLM. That happens all the time with real people, too. Yes, what I'm trying to get at, it's much more vital we nail down the "person prompting and interpreting the LLM" part instead of focusing so much on the "autonomous robots doing everything".
- LoganDark 10mo ago
  I feel you're still missing the point of the experiment... The entire thing was based on how Claude felt empowering -- "I felt like I could do anything with software from my terminal"... It's not at all about autonomous robots... It's about what someone can achieve with the assistance of LLMs, in this case Claude
  - embedding-shape 10mo ago
    I think we might have read two different articles.
    - LoganDark 10mo ago
      The article I read was linked at the top of the submission ("Read the full story")

santadays 10mo ago

> I can definitely believe that in 2026 someone at their computer with access to money can send the right emails and make the right bank transfers to get real people to grow corn for you. I think this is the new turing test. Once it's been passed we will have AGI and all the Sam Altmans of the world will be proven correct. (This isn't a perfect test obviously, but neither was the turing test) If it fails to pass we will still have what jdthedisciple pointed out > a non-farmer, is doing professional farmer's work all on his own without prior experience I am actually curious how many people really believe AGI will happen. Theres alot of talk about it, but when can I ask claude code to build me a browser from scratch and I get a browser from scratch. Or when can I ask claude code to grow corn and claude code grows corn. Never? In 2027? In 2035? In the year 3000? HN seems rife with strong opinions on this, but does anybody really know?

bayindirh 10mo ago
Researchers love to reduce everything into formulae, and believe that when they have the right set of formulae, they can simulate something as-is. Hint: It doesn't work that way. Another hint: I'm a researcher. Yes, we have found a great way to compress and remix the information we scrape from the internet, and even with some randomness, looks like we can emit the right set of tokens which makes sense, or search the internet the right way and emit these search results, but AGI is more than that. There's so much tacit knowledge and implicit computation coming from experience, emotions, sensory inputs and from our own internal noise. AI models doesn't work on those. LLMs consume language and emit language. The information embedded in these languages are available to them, but most of the tacit knowledge is just an empty shell of the thing we try to define with the limited set of words. It's the same with anything we're trying to replace humans in real world, in daily tasks (self-driving, compliance check, analysis, etc.). AI is missing the magic grains we can't put out as words or numbers or anything else. The magic smoke, if you pardon the term. This is why no amount of documentation can replace a knowledgeable human. ...or this is why McLaren Technology Center's aim of "being successful without depending on any specific human by documenting everything everyone knows" is an impossible goal. Because like it or not, intuition is real, and AI lacks it. Irrelevant of how we derive or build that intuition.

pixl97 10mo ago

>ather than trying to find the areas where we could replace humans with as little quality degradation as possible The particular problem here is it is very likely that the easiest people to replace with AI are the ones making the most money and doing the least work. Needless to say those people are going to fight a lot harder to remain employed than the average lower level person has political capital to accomplish. >seems to end up requiring the hand-holding of a human at top, I was born on a farm and know quite a bit about the process, but in the process of trying to get corn grown from seed to harvest I would still contact/contract a set of skilled individuals to do it for me. One thing I've come to realize in the race to achieve AGI, the humans involved don't want AGI, they want ASI. A single model that can do what an expert can, in every field, in a short period of time is not what I would consider a general intelligence at all.

ep103 10mo ago
Ai hype is predicated on the popular idea that it can easily automate someone else's job, because that job they know nothing about is easy, but my job is safe from ai because it is so nuanced.
- lighthouse1212 10mo ago
  [dead]
- Hammershaft 10mo ago
  I don't think this describes all or most AI hype, but it definitely describes Marc Andreessen when he said VCs would be the last ones automated.
xmprt 10mo ago
I didn't think we'd ever see the day where we started enshitifying labor
nerdsniper 10mo ago
> the ones making the most money and doing the least work. Needless to say those people are going to fight a lot harder to remain employed than the average lower level person has political capital to accomplish. They don't have to "fight" to stay employed, anyone with sufficient money is effectively self-employed. It's not going to be illegal to spend your own money running your own business if that's how you want to spend your money. Anyone "making the most money and doing the least work" has enough money to start a variety of businesses if they get fired from their current job.

mring33621 10mo ago

"...where we could replace humans with as little quality degradation as possible" This is pretty much the whole goal of capitalism since the 1800's

neya 10mo ago

>That whole part feels like a race to the bottom, instead of making it easier for the ones involved to do what they do. This is what people said while transitioning from horse carriages to combustion engines, steam engines to modern day locomotives. Like it or not, the race to the bottom has already begun. We will always find a way to work around it, like we have done time and again.

shimman 10mo ago
lol this is not the same at all. If these tools were so good as they claim they wouldn't be struggling so hard to make money or sell them. The fact that they have to be force fed into people is all the proof you need that this is an unsustainable bubble. Something to keep in mind that unless you can destroy something the system is not democratic and people are realizing how undemocratic this game truly is.

micromacrofoot 10mo ago

yes exactly, comma.ai is making a driver assistance product and this is similar to their stance... which is refreshing they know they won't be able to make a fully autonomous product while navigating liability and all sorts of problems so they're using technology to make drivers more comfortable while still in control none of this hype about full autonomy, just realistic ideas about how things can be easier for the humans in control