3 ms·

> And maybe we don't want to build machines that are concious in this sense. The most positive outcome I can think of is one where computers get really good at

by Jensson 7mo ago

> And maybe we don't want to build machines that are concious in this sense. The most positive outcome I can think of is one where computers get really good at doing, and humans get really good at thinking. If we never figure out how to make computers creative, then there will be a very natural division of labor between man and machine. This is where LLM is currently going. Not really AGI since they can't think like humans, but they can do a lot of things and humans can train them on novel things. Then human work is changed to figuring out new things and the AI solves all old things, that seems much more fun than most white collar work today.

lebek 7mo ago
> Then human work is changed to figuring out new things and the AI solves all old things, that seems much more fun than most white collar work today. But it's not fun to be figuring out new things all the time. Some amount of routine work is necessary to 1) exercise mastery (feels good), and 2) recover energy. This is why a lot of people find agentic coding exhausting and less fun, you're basically always having to be creative (what's the next feature?) or solve the hardest 5% of issues the LLM can't handle.
- embedding-shape 7mo ago
  > you're basically always having to be creative (what's the next feature?) or solve the hardest 5% of issues the LLM can't handle. Maybe I'm wired differently, but this is fun to me, and "exercising mastery" by doing routine work is almost never fun, things stop being fun and feel good once I've "mastered" them, and I can't say I've ever "recovered energy" by doing routine work, it seems to suck energy out of me faster than anything. To recover, I tend to rest and do anything but work. But again, maybe it's just weird wiring.
  - __s 7mo ago
    For me a bit of grunt work to start the day is like morning strechs
    - embedding-shape 7mo ago
      Forcing myself to do something like that would be a great way to ruin my day ;)
oytis 7mo ago
That's an expression of class thinking from the beginning IMO. People think of themselves as thinkers and creators, while those who do labour they rely on without getting too much into details are merely doers and can ideally be replaced. But it's really thinking and creativity all the way down if you try to learn to do things well
- Jensson 7mo ago
  > But it's really thinking and creativity all the way down if you try to learn to do things well Yes, everyone starts out creative. But we all can tell the difference between a worker that is still creative and learning and a worker that gave up creativity and is just doing his job. The first will still be useful in this AI age the second will be replaced by AI learning what he already knows.
  - aleph_minus_one 7mo ago
    > But we all can tell the difference between a worker that is still creative and learning and a worker that gave up creativity and is just doing his job. The first will still be useful in this AI age the second will be replaced by AI learning what he already knows. Rather: the workers who are (still) creative are typically a huge annoyance to their bosses.
    - Jensson 7mo ago
      Yeah, and that is how people stop being creative as they get punished for it while their uncreative peers gets praised. It happens to most people in school or early in their career, few gets to keep their creativity. In a new world where creativity is valued higher more people could probably keep their creativity.
      - aleph_minus_one 7mo ago
        > In a new world where creativity is valued higher This is in my opinion a very dubious assumption. :-(
dannersy 7mo ago
I see a lot less thinking as a result of using LLMs as they are today and I don't see the providers building tools to promote a better way to use them. They are still way too sycophantic.
dgxyz 7mo ago
I don't think that's where it's going. LLMs are shit at doing stuff to anyone who is a domain expert in the thing that they are supposed to be doing. They are trained on a huge corpus of average stuff. They produce average to crappy solutions quickly. The technology industry bubble is trained to accept that as good enough which is why everyone is excited. Elsewhere it's a complete and utter joke. And on top of that, a huge chunk of doing requires humans to physically do something or absolute determinism is better anyway, neither of which an LLM is capable of. None of it makes sense. Edit: actually the technology industry moves the goalposts to match the claims. That is the dishonest bit. I've not seen any evidence of novel capability which isn't corrupted by some dishonest measurement approach.
croes 7mo ago
The problem is most people’s job depends on doing the work part and not the figuring out the new things part. So you just lose your job.
mofeien 7mo ago
> > The most positive outcome I can think of is one where computers get really good at doing, and humans get really good at thinking. > This is where LLM is currently going. This is not where LLMs are currently going. They are trained and benchmarked explicitly in all areas that humans produce economically and cognitively valuable work: STEM fields, computer use, robotics, etc. Systems are already emerging where AI agents autonomously orchestrate subagents which again all work towards a goal autonomously and only from time to time communicate with you to give you status updates. Thinking that you as a slow human will be needed for much longer to fill some crucial role in this AI system that it cannot solve by itself, and to bring some crucial skill of creativity or thinking to the table that it cannot generate itself is just wishful thinking. And to me personally, telling an AI to "do cool thing X" without having made any contribution to it beyond the initial prompt also feels very depressing and seems like much less fun than actually feeling valued in what I do. I'm sorry for sounding harsh.
- ugtr3 7mo ago
  lol what a load of gibberish.
plaidfuji 7mo ago
Came here to quote the same sentence, but say the exact opposite - it seems to me that today’s LLMs are progressing far faster on the “thinking” front than the “doing”. I suppose it depends on your definition of “doing” - if it’s “writing code”, then sure. But there’s a whole world of actual, physical “doing” that AI is nowhere close to matching humans at, and it’s much easier for me to envision a world where AI replaces the management / “thinking” layer of society than the physical labor. Which is scary, because it’s the opposite of his (and I would assume most people’s) ideal.

by Jensson 7mo ago

lebek 7mo ago

> Then human work is changed to figuring out new things and the AI solves all old things, that seems much more fun than most white collar work today. But it's not fun to be figuring out new things all the time. Some amount of routine work is necessary to 1) exercise mastery (feels good), and 2) recover energy. This is why a lot of people find agentic coding exhausting and less fun, you're basically always having to be creative (what's the next feature?) or solve the hardest 5% of issues the LLM can't handle.

embedding-shape 7mo ago
> you're basically always having to be creative (what's the next feature?) or solve the hardest 5% of issues the LLM can't handle. Maybe I'm wired differently, but this is fun to me, and "exercising mastery" by doing routine work is almost never fun, things stop being fun and feel good once I've "mastered" them, and I can't say I've ever "recovered energy" by doing routine work, it seems to suck energy out of me faster than anything. To recover, I tend to rest and do anything but work. But again, maybe it's just weird wiring.
- __s 7mo ago
  For me a bit of grunt work to start the day is like morning strechs
  - embedding-shape 7mo ago
    Forcing myself to do something like that would be a great way to ruin my day ;)

oytis 7mo ago

That's an expression of class thinking from the beginning IMO. People think of themselves as thinkers and creators, while those who do labour they rely on without getting too much into details are merely doers and can ideally be replaced. But it's really thinking and creativity all the way down if you try to learn to do things well

Jensson 7mo ago
> But it's really thinking and creativity all the way down if you try to learn to do things well Yes, everyone starts out creative. But we all can tell the difference between a worker that is still creative and learning and a worker that gave up creativity and is just doing his job. The first will still be useful in this AI age the second will be replaced by AI learning what he already knows.
- aleph_minus_one 7mo ago
  > But we all can tell the difference between a worker that is still creative and learning and a worker that gave up creativity and is just doing his job. The first will still be useful in this AI age the second will be replaced by AI learning what he already knows. Rather: the workers who are (still) creative are typically a huge annoyance to their bosses.
  - Jensson 7mo ago
    Yeah, and that is how people stop being creative as they get punished for it while their uncreative peers gets praised. It happens to most people in school or early in their career, few gets to keep their creativity. In a new world where creativity is valued higher more people could probably keep their creativity.
    - aleph_minus_one 7mo ago
      > In a new world where creativity is valued higher This is in my opinion a very dubious assumption. :-(

dannersy 7mo ago

I see a lot less thinking as a result of using LLMs as they are today and I don't see the providers building tools to promote a better way to use them. They are still way too sycophantic.

dgxyz 7mo ago

I don't think that's where it's going. LLMs are shit at doing stuff to anyone who is a domain expert in the thing that they are supposed to be doing. They are trained on a huge corpus of average stuff. They produce average to crappy solutions quickly. The technology industry bubble is trained to accept that as good enough which is why everyone is excited. Elsewhere it's a complete and utter joke. And on top of that, a huge chunk of doing requires humans to physically do something or absolute determinism is better anyway, neither of which an LLM is capable of. None of it makes sense. Edit: actually the technology industry moves the goalposts to match the claims. That is the dishonest bit. I've not seen any evidence of novel capability which isn't corrupted by some dishonest measurement approach.

croes 7mo ago

The problem is most people’s job depends on doing the work part and not the figuring out the new things part. So you just lose your job.

mofeien 7mo ago

> > The most positive outcome I can think of is one where computers get really good at doing, and humans get really good at thinking. > This is where LLM is currently going. This is not where LLMs are currently going. They are trained and benchmarked explicitly in all areas that humans produce economically and cognitively valuable work: STEM fields, computer use, robotics, etc. Systems are already emerging where AI agents autonomously orchestrate subagents which again all work towards a goal autonomously and only from time to time communicate with you to give you status updates. Thinking that you as a slow human will be needed for much longer to fill some crucial role in this AI system that it cannot solve by itself, and to bring some crucial skill of creativity or thinking to the table that it cannot generate itself is just wishful thinking. And to me personally, telling an AI to "do cool thing X" without having made any contribution to it beyond the initial prompt also feels very depressing and seems like much less fun than actually feeling valued in what I do. I'm sorry for sounding harsh.

ugtr3 7mo ago
lol what a load of gibberish.

plaidfuji 7mo ago

Came here to quote the same sentence, but say the exact opposite - it seems to me that today’s LLMs are progressing far faster on the “thinking” front than the “doing”. I suppose it depends on your definition of “doing” - if it’s “writing code”, then sure. But there’s a whole world of actual, physical “doing” that AI is nowhere close to matching humans at, and it’s much easier for me to envision a world where AI replaces the management / “thinking” layer of society than the physical labor. Which is scary, because it’s the opposite of his (and I would assume most people’s) ideal.