6 ms·

> how every new iteration is going to spell doom/be a paradigm shift/change the entire tech industry etc. It's much the dynamic between parents and a child. Th

> how every new iteration is going to spell doom/be a paradigm shift/change the entire tech industry etc. It's much the dynamic between parents and a child. The child, with limited hindsight, almost zero insight and no ability to forecast, is annoyed by their parents. Nothing bad ever happens! Why won't parents stop being so worried all the time and make a fuss over nothing? The parents, which the child somewhat starts to realize but not fully, have no clue what they are doing. There is a lot they don't know and are going to be wrong about, because it's all new to them. But, what they do have is a visceral idea of how bad things could be and that's something they have to talk to their child about too. In the eyes of the parents the child is % dead all the time. Assigning the wrong % makes you look like an idiot and not being able to handle any % too. In the eyes of the child actions leading to death are not even a concept. Hitting the right balance is probably hard, but not for the reasons the child thinks.

ofjcihen 7mo ago
That feels like a very complex way of looking at it. Another way would be to say “potentially profit seeking companies have an incentive to oversell products even if they’re good”.
- ACCount37 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - ofjcihen 7mo ago
    Homie chill. I use Opus every day and I love it. I’m not saying it’s all hype, just that these companies are here to make money and that every advertisement should be taken with salt yeah? Also maybe consider what this kind of visceral reaction indicates on a personal level :/
    - ACCount37 7mo ago
      [flagged]
      - ofjcihen 7mo ago
        I mean if it helps I support the move to not release mythos right off the bat yeah? That makes sense, treat new models like new vulnerabilities and give companies time to scan with them etc. But you have to admit it does serve a savvy business purpose of creating a moat where one wasn’t by getting these tech companies on board and the threat does make for good marketing yeah?
        ACCount37 7mo ago
        [flagged]
        sandspar 7mo ago
        Normalcy bias is human nature. If human nature bothers you then you're going to be annoyed all the time.
        UltraSane 7mo ago
        "There is NO shadow wizard marketing gang pulling the strings on every single thing those companies do" Yes there is they are called marketing departments and it is their exact purpose.
      - techpression 7mo ago
        We have been hearing this since GPT-2. They’ve been crying wolf for too long, that’s on them (the model providers). That and the fact they never publish anything interesting around their claims. It’s the ffmpeg thing all over again (very old bug in a decoder for a format used by one game from the early 90’s sold as some major breakthrough).
- WithinReason 7mo ago
  Is Anthropic lying about model capabilities? If not, where is the overselling?
  - GoatInGrey 7mo ago
    March 2025, Anthropic was claiming that 90% of code would be written by LLMs in three to six months, and "essentially all" code within twelve months. This was one week after closing a Series E round for $3.5 billion. When they began working on their Series F round for $13 billion. You shouldn't need more than that to understand what's going on here. The Claude Code leak revealed that Anthropic runs Claude-operated bots on the internet. One should be very cautious in getting swept up in the fund-raising process if they are not seeing first-hand the fruition of all of the flattering claims being presented by strangers on the internet.
    - WithinReason 7mo ago
      You're talking about marketing predictions and I'm talking about data presented in a whitepaper. They are not the same thing.
    - supern0va 7mo ago
      >March 2025, Anthropic was claiming that 90% of code would be written by LLMs in three to six months, and "essentially all" code within twelve months. There's a pretty big difference between "We predict in X time frame our model will be capable of Y" and "Our model did Y." This is like watching someone measure the size of an object and saying "I don't believe you because you guessed it was X before you pulled out your tape measure."
athrowaway3z 7mo ago
This is just a really bad analogy. It doesn't addresses that there are multiple sources, the incentives to be telling us about it, and the spectrum between disaster-mitigation heroes and snake-oil salesmen.
kubb 7mo ago
It’s more like the abusive parents telling the child that they’ll sell him to the scary man at the bus stop every time they want to coerce the child into doing what they want. Eventually the child develops disrespect for authority.
maccard 7mo ago
Disagree - we’re being told on one hand that we are 6 months away from AI writing all Code, and 3 months into that the tools are unusable for complex engineering [1]. Every time I mention this I’m told “but have you tried the latest model and this particular tool” - yes I have, but if I need to be on the hottest new model for it to be functional that means the last time you claimed it was solved, it wasn’t solved. [0] https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/ai-ceo-says-software-engineers-could-be-replaced-in-months/502087 https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/ai-ceo-says-softw... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47660925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47660925
- LordDragonfang 7mo ago
  > “I think… I don’t know… we might be six to twelve months away from when the model is doing most, maybe all of what SWEs (software engineers) do end to end.” I think it's disingenuous (as disingenuous as you're accusing these marketing teams of being) to paraphrase that as "being told on one hand that we are 6 months away from AI writing all Code". It's merely stating that it's a real possibility. (It's also disingenuous to use a post complaining about a behavioral regression bug as evidence that it's not progressing) Dismissing it as impossible is silly, considering how close it already is to a junior dev. Keep in mind that 14 months prior to that statement was before we even had any public reasoning models. Things really are moving that fast, it's just, at the moment, unclear how fast.
  - maccard 7mo ago
    We’ve been suggesting that programmers are going to be replaced by simpler programming languages, gui programming tools, no code tools, low code tools, and now AI. The real big step was when Claude code came out and introduced the agentic loop where it could self validate against tests/linters/tooling, but everything after that had been penned as miraculous when IME it’s a new iteration of the same thing - wild hallucinations, getting stuck in deep loops, ignoring explicit instructions and guard rails, wild tangents and just generating stuff that doesn’t work or solve the problem. > I think it's disingenuous (as disingenuous as you're accusing these marketing teams of being) to paraphrase that as "being told on one hand that we are 6 months away from AI writing all Code". It's merely stating that it's a real possibility No - you don’t get to make wild predictions and say “oh I didn’t actually mean that, look how succesful we are though”. These teams aren’t saying “hey we think we’re going to majorly influence programming in 6-12 months”, they’re saying “we’re going to replace programmers”. If you can’t stand over your claims, don’t make them. _That’s_ disingenuous.
shafyy 7mo ago
I'll have some of what you're having
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
lpln3452 7mo ago
[dead]
materialpoint 7mo ago
Did you compare AI companies to parents and engineers actually delivering value to toddlers? AI companies cannot, in any capacity, be regarded as caretakers.
avaer 7mo ago
The parents in this case are profiteering corporations on a mission to exploit the child for everything they can get away with, almost by definition. It's a slightly different dynamic.
bottom999mottob 7mo ago
This is literally one the most infantilizing and simultaneously insulting analogies I've ever come across on this site. Do you really think consumers of the latest AI tools have no ability to forecast? The parents in this analogy have every incentive to lie
FridgeSeal 7mo ago
I feel like you’re muddying 2 different arguments here. Or rather, 2 different positions. You’re asserting that people who are tired of this line being wheeled out hold a position analogous to “what’s the big deal, nothing bad happens, just relax”. In reality, that’s only 1 position. The other position is “I understand fully, the consequences, but the relentless doomer language is tiring in the face of continuing-to-not-eventuate”.
- MaybiusStrip 7mo ago
  What do you think of people that say that about climate change? It seems you don't understand fully. This is not the time go get tired, right before this actually starts impacting jobs and people in other ways.
juleiie 7mo ago
Don’t take it personally but this amount of fear and paranoia about death on every corner sounds like a mental illness to me. Generalised Anxiety disorder to be precise. Maybe I am just not a parent. In any case there are substances and realiable methods that fix whatever paralyzing existential dread anyone struggles with daily. Probably best to use conventional route but I personally use special low thc, high cbg weed once a week with a medical grade vaporizer and once a year (early autumn) a moderate dose of golden teacher mushrooms. Although I understand that most people perhaps couldn’t due to not managing their own business but on a strict employment contract with urine tests.
haritha-j 7mo ago
Sure, if the parent's stock price soared if the child dies.
therealpygon 7mo ago
Are you suggesting these researchers somehow have wisdom and aren’t just guessing, and that everyone else are children too naive to understand the technology? It certainly sounds that way from the description you are attempting to apply. This is two parents disagreeing on whether their child will automatically grow up to be a psychopath with one parent constantly remarking “if you teach that child how to cut bread, they will stab everyone later. If you teach that child to drive, they will run over everyone later”, not the “parents know better” situation you describe.
toraway 7mo ago
An analogy that’s, quite literally, an appeal to paternalism to trust the motivations and pernicious incentive structures of the big AI labs.

ofjcihen 7mo ago

That feels like a very complex way of looking at it. Another way would be to say “potentially profit seeking companies have an incentive to oversell products even if they’re good”.

ACCount37 7mo ago
[flagged]
- ofjcihen 7mo ago
  Homie chill. I use Opus every day and I love it. I’m not saying it’s all hype, just that these companies are here to make money and that every advertisement should be taken with salt yeah? Also maybe consider what this kind of visceral reaction indicates on a personal level :/
  - ACCount37 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - ofjcihen 7mo ago
      I mean if it helps I support the move to not release mythos right off the bat yeah? That makes sense, treat new models like new vulnerabilities and give companies time to scan with them etc. But you have to admit it does serve a savvy business purpose of creating a moat where one wasn’t by getting these tech companies on board and the threat does make for good marketing yeah?
      - ACCount37 7mo ago
        [flagged]
        sandspar 7mo ago
        Normalcy bias is human nature. If human nature bothers you then you're going to be annoyed all the time.
        UltraSane 7mo ago
        "There is NO shadow wizard marketing gang pulling the strings on every single thing those companies do" Yes there is they are called marketing departments and it is their exact purpose.
    - techpression 7mo ago
      We have been hearing this since GPT-2. They’ve been crying wolf for too long, that’s on them (the model providers). That and the fact they never publish anything interesting around their claims. It’s the ffmpeg thing all over again (very old bug in a decoder for a format used by one game from the early 90’s sold as some major breakthrough).
WithinReason 7mo ago
Is Anthropic lying about model capabilities? If not, where is the overselling?
- GoatInGrey 7mo ago
  March 2025, Anthropic was claiming that 90% of code would be written by LLMs in three to six months, and "essentially all" code within twelve months. This was one week after closing a Series E round for $3.5 billion. When they began working on their Series F round for $13 billion. You shouldn't need more than that to understand what's going on here. The Claude Code leak revealed that Anthropic runs Claude-operated bots on the internet. One should be very cautious in getting swept up in the fund-raising process if they are not seeing first-hand the fruition of all of the flattering claims being presented by strangers on the internet.
  - WithinReason 7mo ago
    You're talking about marketing predictions and I'm talking about data presented in a whitepaper. They are not the same thing.
  - supern0va 7mo ago
    >March 2025, Anthropic was claiming that 90% of code would be written by LLMs in three to six months, and "essentially all" code within twelve months. There's a pretty big difference between "We predict in X time frame our model will be capable of Y" and "Our model did Y." This is like watching someone measure the size of an object and saying "I don't believe you because you guessed it was X before you pulled out your tape measure."

athrowaway3z 7mo ago

This is just a really bad analogy. It doesn't addresses that there are multiple sources, the incentives to be telling us about it, and the spectrum between disaster-mitigation heroes and snake-oil salesmen.

kubb 7mo ago

It’s more like the abusive parents telling the child that they’ll sell him to the scary man at the bus stop every time they want to coerce the child into doing what they want. Eventually the child develops disrespect for authority.

maccard 7mo ago

Disagree - we’re being told on one hand that we are 6 months away from AI writing all Code, and 3 months into that the tools are unusable for complex engineering [1]. Every time I mention this I’m told “but have you tried the latest model and this particular tool” - yes I have, but if I need to be on the hottest new model for it to be functional that means the last time you claimed it was solved, it wasn’t solved. [0] https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/ai-ceo-says-software-engineers-could-be-replaced-in-months/502087 https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/ai-ceo-says-softw... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47660925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47660925

LordDragonfang 7mo ago
> “I think… I don’t know… we might be six to twelve months away from when the model is doing most, maybe all of what SWEs (software engineers) do end to end.” I think it's disingenuous (as disingenuous as you're accusing these marketing teams of being) to paraphrase that as "being told on one hand that we are 6 months away from AI writing all Code". It's merely stating that it's a real possibility. (It's also disingenuous to use a post complaining about a behavioral regression bug as evidence that it's not progressing) Dismissing it as impossible is silly, considering how close it already is to a junior dev. Keep in mind that 14 months prior to that statement was before we even had any public reasoning models. Things really are moving that fast, it's just, at the moment, unclear how fast.
- maccard 7mo ago
  We’ve been suggesting that programmers are going to be replaced by simpler programming languages, gui programming tools, no code tools, low code tools, and now AI. The real big step was when Claude code came out and introduced the agentic loop where it could self validate against tests/linters/tooling, but everything after that had been penned as miraculous when IME it’s a new iteration of the same thing - wild hallucinations, getting stuck in deep loops, ignoring explicit instructions and guard rails, wild tangents and just generating stuff that doesn’t work or solve the problem. > I think it's disingenuous (as disingenuous as you're accusing these marketing teams of being) to paraphrase that as "being told on one hand that we are 6 months away from AI writing all Code". It's merely stating that it's a real possibility No - you don’t get to make wild predictions and say “oh I didn’t actually mean that, look how succesful we are though”. These teams aren’t saying “hey we think we’re going to majorly influence programming in 6-12 months”, they’re saying “we’re going to replace programmers”. If you can’t stand over your claims, don’t make them. _That’s_ disingenuous.

shafyy 7mo ago

I'll have some of what you're having

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]

lpln3452 7mo ago

[dead]

materialpoint 7mo ago

Did you compare AI companies to parents and engineers actually delivering value to toddlers? AI companies cannot, in any capacity, be regarded as caretakers.

avaer 7mo ago

The parents in this case are profiteering corporations on a mission to exploit the child for everything they can get away with, almost by definition. It's a slightly different dynamic.

bottom999mottob 7mo ago

This is literally one the most infantilizing and simultaneously insulting analogies I've ever come across on this site. Do you really think consumers of the latest AI tools have no ability to forecast? The parents in this analogy have every incentive to lie

FridgeSeal 7mo ago

I feel like you’re muddying 2 different arguments here. Or rather, 2 different positions. You’re asserting that people who are tired of this line being wheeled out hold a position analogous to “what’s the big deal, nothing bad happens, just relax”. In reality, that’s only 1 position. The other position is “I understand fully, the consequences, but the relentless doomer language is tiring in the face of continuing-to-not-eventuate”.

MaybiusStrip 7mo ago
What do you think of people that say that about climate change? It seems you don't understand fully. This is not the time go get tired, right before this actually starts impacting jobs and people in other ways.

juleiie 7mo ago

Don’t take it personally but this amount of fear and paranoia about death on every corner sounds like a mental illness to me. Generalised Anxiety disorder to be precise. Maybe I am just not a parent. In any case there are substances and realiable methods that fix whatever paralyzing existential dread anyone struggles with daily. Probably best to use conventional route but I personally use special low thc, high cbg weed once a week with a medical grade vaporizer and once a year (early autumn) a moderate dose of golden teacher mushrooms. Although I understand that most people perhaps couldn’t due to not managing their own business but on a strict employment contract with urine tests.

haritha-j 7mo ago

Sure, if the parent's stock price soared if the child dies.

therealpygon 7mo ago

Are you suggesting these researchers somehow have wisdom and aren’t just guessing, and that everyone else are children too naive to understand the technology? It certainly sounds that way from the description you are attempting to apply. This is two parents disagreeing on whether their child will automatically grow up to be a psychopath with one parent constantly remarking “if you teach that child how to cut bread, they will stab everyone later. If you teach that child to drive, they will run over everyone later”, not the “parents know better” situation you describe.

toraway 7mo ago

An analogy that’s, quite literally, an appeal to paternalism to trust the motivations and pernicious incentive structures of the big AI labs.