2 ms·

If humans can figure out to optimize to circumvent bottlenecks, I have no doubt each new bottleneck will also get routed around, just now automated.

by Fordec 18d ago

dakolli 18d ago
How do you automate the mines to get the raw materials to make the compute from, and build additional fabs that take a almost a decade to stand up. You're actually delusional.
- Fordec 18d ago
  Hello good sir from the 1700s pre-industrial revolution who doesn't think that mines and factories can be automated.
  - dakolli 18d ago
    The factories that supply the equipment, maintain the equipment, the energy inputs, the financials of those mines are not automated. People on hackernews are actually some of the dumbest people on the internet. This place is worse than lesswrong.
    - scott_weber 17d ago
      The question of whether something can be automated is distinct from the question of whether it is currently automated. Things can can be automated may transition to being automated in practice in the future as technology improves and investment deepens.
- a2ff6eeb0 18d ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_out_(manufacturing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_out_(manufacturing) Scroll down to the existing examples section.
- 7373737373 18d ago
  Some mines are already heavily automated: https://youtube.com/watch?v=_Z9w-mUoUsY https://youtube.com/watch?v=_Z9w-mUoUsY https://youtube.com/watch?v=SRuht0QIprs https://youtube.com/watch?v=SRuht0QIprs
mrbungie 18d ago
We are not in an everything-has-an-API world yet, and it'll for sure take some time to get there.
- Fordec 18d ago
  For sure. Anyone who thinks that we're in the end state of what progress can be made simply lacks imagination. This is all going to keep changing and iterating for the rest of our natural lives. The only constant is change.
- combobyte 17d ago
  I'd argue we've been in an "everything-has-an-API" world for a long time now — it's just that discoverability of said APIs is still crap.
  - classified 17d ago
    And since LLMs are apparently good at circumventing the absence of an API, there's not much incentive to add them now. APIs are for humans. LLMs just break through all the captchas and anti-bot measures.
    - jasomill 17d ago
      Humans do this too.
      - classified 17d ago
        Yes, but for humans it creates friction. Seeing a captcha makes me think twice and thrice if I really want to visit that site so badly that I'll endure the suckage. LLMs don't care, for them the friction doesn't exist.
HenrikPontoppid 18d ago
Yes. In other words: the singularity. I'll only believe it when I see it though.
- Fordec 18d ago
  I'm coming around to not liking the term singularity, it implies an endpoint or finish line rather than something that just keeps continuing and evolving.
  - supern0va 18d ago
    It doesn't imply that. The singularity is just the inflection point.
    - jsLavaGoat 18d ago
      Singularity and inflection point are incompatible mathematically and in the plain sense, it really is focused on a particular moment and always has been, hence the term. And it's definitely supposed to imply some kind of historical discontinuity not a change in convexity.
    - Fordec 18d ago
      Which assumes the presence of an inflection point that keeps inflecting rather than revert to an S-curve. The growth model is not borne out yet to declare what shape it is.
      - supern0va 17d ago
        Certainly. The singularity sort of assumes that there is not a fixed limit to intelligence, or at least that if there is, it's quite a ways away. That may not be true.
  - piloto_ciego 17d ago
    I've done a lot of thinking about this since I first used ChatGPT to write some BS jinja2 templates hours after I first play with it. I said to my friend then (who scoffed at me) that "man, this is incredible, I think we're in the foothills of the singularity! This is insane! Sure it's stupid now but I can't believe this is even possible!" That friend is so black pilled and bitter he now hates AI. Whatever, I can't fix that, but the current progress is astounding. But thinking about the geometry of this problem helps understand why people aren't adjusting well to this. While we're walking on the curve, we look at the rate of change of the curve and say, "well, yeah, of course, dy/dx is 5 at this point and was 1 at the point a few years ago, because the curve is getting steeper" but we're always going to feel this way as things rip off into the stratosphere because dy/dx(e^x) = e^x. From standing on the curve the curve is notably seeper, but the steepness totally makes sense to you. It's only when you look back 10 years or so that you think "wait a second, holy hell, I couldn't have imagined this!" The first time I really (I mean really) thought about the singularity and AI was in roughly 2014. I mean, yea, I'd thought about things before that, but yeah, before the Humans need not apply video, I'd never actually given it much thought. I think back to myself 10 - 15 years or so ago, when I was just starting to tackle real programming projects, and was just starting to get decent at writing code, there is no way on earth that I would have imagined that a little over a decade later, Navier-Stokes would be solved by a computer program and the vast majority of my work would be playing sooth sayer to increasingly complicated piles of linear algebra.

If humans can figure out to optimize to circumvent bottlenecks, I have no doubt each new bottleneck will also get routed around, just now automated.

by Fordec 18d ago

If humans can figure out to optimize to circumvent bottlenecks, I have no doubt each new bottleneck will also get routed around, just now automated.

dakolli 18d ago

How do you automate the mines to get the raw materials to make the compute from, and build additional fabs that take a almost a decade to stand up. You're actually delusional.

Fordec 18d ago
Hello good sir from the 1700s pre-industrial revolution who doesn't think that mines and factories can be automated.
- dakolli 18d ago
  The factories that supply the equipment, maintain the equipment, the energy inputs, the financials of those mines are not automated. People on hackernews are actually some of the dumbest people on the internet. This place is worse than lesswrong.
  - scott_weber 17d ago
    The question of whether something can be automated is distinct from the question of whether it is currently automated. Things can can be automated may transition to being automated in practice in the future as technology improves and investment deepens.
a2ff6eeb0 18d ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_out_(manufacturing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_out_(manufacturing) Scroll down to the existing examples section.
7373737373 18d ago
Some mines are already heavily automated: https://youtube.com/watch?v=_Z9w-mUoUsY https://youtube.com/watch?v=_Z9w-mUoUsY https://youtube.com/watch?v=SRuht0QIprs https://youtube.com/watch?v=SRuht0QIprs

mrbungie 18d ago

We are not in an everything-has-an-API world yet, and it'll for sure take some time to get there.

Fordec 18d ago
For sure. Anyone who thinks that we're in the end state of what progress can be made simply lacks imagination. This is all going to keep changing and iterating for the rest of our natural lives. The only constant is change.
combobyte 17d ago
I'd argue we've been in an "everything-has-an-API" world for a long time now — it's just that discoverability of said APIs is still crap.
- classified 17d ago
  And since LLMs are apparently good at circumventing the absence of an API, there's not much incentive to add them now. APIs are for humans. LLMs just break through all the captchas and anti-bot measures.
  - jasomill 17d ago
    Humans do this too.
    - classified 17d ago
      Yes, but for humans it creates friction. Seeing a captcha makes me think twice and thrice if I really want to visit that site so badly that I'll endure the suckage. LLMs don't care, for them the friction doesn't exist.

HenrikPontoppid 18d ago

Yes. In other words: the singularity. I'll only believe it when I see it though.

Fordec 18d ago
I'm coming around to not liking the term singularity, it implies an endpoint or finish line rather than something that just keeps continuing and evolving.
- supern0va 18d ago
  It doesn't imply that. The singularity is just the inflection point.
  - jsLavaGoat 18d ago
    Singularity and inflection point are incompatible mathematically and in the plain sense, it really is focused on a particular moment and always has been, hence the term. And it's definitely supposed to imply some kind of historical discontinuity not a change in convexity.
  - Fordec 18d ago
    Which assumes the presence of an inflection point that keeps inflecting rather than revert to an S-curve. The growth model is not borne out yet to declare what shape it is.
    - supern0va 17d ago
      Certainly. The singularity sort of assumes that there is not a fixed limit to intelligence, or at least that if there is, it's quite a ways away. That may not be true.
- piloto_ciego 17d ago
  I've done a lot of thinking about this since I first used ChatGPT to write some BS jinja2 templates hours after I first play with it. I said to my friend then (who scoffed at me) that "man, this is incredible, I think we're in the foothills of the singularity! This is insane! Sure it's stupid now but I can't believe this is even possible!" That friend is so black pilled and bitter he now hates AI. Whatever, I can't fix that, but the current progress is astounding. But thinking about the geometry of this problem helps understand why people aren't adjusting well to this. While we're walking on the curve, we look at the rate of change of the curve and say, "well, yeah, of course, dy/dx is 5 at this point and was 1 at the point a few years ago, because the curve is getting steeper" but we're always going to feel this way as things rip off into the stratosphere because dy/dx(e^x) = e^x. From standing on the curve the curve is notably seeper, but the steepness totally makes sense to you. It's only when you look back 10 years or so that you think "wait a second, holy hell, I couldn't have imagined this!" The first time I really (I mean really) thought about the singularity and AI was in roughly 2014. I mean, yea, I'd thought about things before that, but yeah, before the Humans need not apply video, I'd never actually given it much thought. I think back to myself 10 - 15 years or so ago, when I was just starting to tackle real programming projects, and was just starting to get decent at writing code, there is no way on earth that I would have imagined that a little over a decade later, Navier-Stokes would be solved by a computer program and the vast majority of my work would be playing sooth sayer to increasingly complicated piles of linear algebra.