emp17344

21 ms·

301.
by emp17344 11mo ago
Yup, it’s essentially an admission of failure. I think the people who were expecting AI to improve exponentially are disappointed by its current state, where it’s basically just a useful tool to assist workers in some highly specific fields
302.
by emp17344 11mo ago
Hopefully this is the point where AI starts to be seen as just a useful tool, as opposed to a sign of imminent AGI. I’ll be glad to hear less rabidly overzealous rhetoric surrounding AI.
303.
by emp17344 11mo ago
My guess is AI will find niches where it provides productivity boosts, but won’t be as useful in the majority of fields. Right now, AI works pretty well for coding, and doesn’t really excel anywhere else. It’s not looking like it will get g
304.
by emp17344 11mo ago
Well, that’s only because it exhibits all the signs of a bubble. It’s not exactly a grand conspiracy.
305.
by emp17344 11mo ago
It’s not necessarily lying, but it’s certainly deceptive.
306.
by emp17344 11mo ago
Too many people fall into the trap of believing the economy is zero-sum. You see it all the time on HN.
307.
by emp17344 11mo ago
This is the surest sign progress has plateaued, but it seems people just take the benchmarks at face value.
308.
by emp17344 11mo ago
“People are too flawed to trust”? You’ve lost the plot. People are trusted to perform complex tasks every single minute of every single day, and they overwhelmingly perform those tasks with minimal errors.
309.
by emp17344 11mo ago
> ASI which can effortlessly beat them at any task This doesn’t exist, though. The development of ASI is far from inevitable. Even AGI seems out of reach at this point.
310.
by emp17344 11mo ago
It doesn’t matter what you think. Where’s all the data proving that AI is actually valuable? All we have are anecdotes and promises.
311.
by emp17344 11mo ago
Where’s all the data showing productivity increases from AI adoption? If AI is so useful, it shouldn’t be hard to prove it.
312.
by emp17344 11mo ago
How is this different from a less reliable search engine?
313.
by emp17344 11mo ago
And yet, we’re all still employed, so obviously these systems are not yet analogous to humans. They mirror human behavior in some cases because they’ve been trained on almost every piece of text produced by human beings that we have access
314.
by emp17344 11mo ago
Maybe LLMs always fail to generalize outside their data set, and it’s just less noticeable with written language.
315.
by emp17344 11mo ago
If AI is so useful, we should have a ton of data showing an increase in productivity across many fields. GDP should be skyrocketing. We haven’t seen any of this, and every time a study is conducted, it’s determined that AI is modestly usefu
316.
by emp17344 11mo ago
The anti-crypto people were correct, though. Why should we not push back when we’re seeing the same type of baseless hype that surrounded crypto being cultivated around the AI space?
317.
by emp17344 11mo ago
We’ve all used the tools, and they’re… fine. They probably will contribute modestly to overall productivity in certain fields, but they certainly aren’t as transformative or magical as the current hype suggests. I’m not sure why you insist
318.
by emp17344 11mo ago
This is 100% marketing, just like every other statement Anthropic makes.
319.
by emp17344 11mo ago
Probably because it’s not that much better than GPT-5 and they want to keep the AI train moving.
320.
by emp17344 11mo ago
There’s no guarantee AI will get good enough to replace anyone. We’ve pretty much run out of training data at this point. I’m a little annoyed that people speak about future progress like it’s an inevitability.
321.
by emp17344 11mo ago
Is it going to get better? Because people have been saying that for years now, and while AI output is somewhat improved, many of the issues with it have not changed.
322.
by emp17344 1y ago
You just sound like a misanthrope. If you’re so smart, why are you surrounding yourself with stupid people? Is it possible you’re not as smart as you think, and in fact, just as fallible as the rest of us?
323.
by emp17344 1y ago
LLM output is in no way more effective than human output.
324.
by emp17344 1y ago
A careless comment from the Fed Chair could quite literally destroy the economy. He’s constrained in what he can say - you almost never get to hear what Powell is really thinking.
325.
by emp17344 1y ago
Powell is so influential as the Fed Chair that he’s constrained in what he can even say. If he outright says there’s a tech bubble, that statement alone could cause the bubble to pop. I’m not convinced these are his actual views - he’s sayi
326.
by emp17344 1y ago
Sorry, but your anecdote isn’t very convincing in comparison to the data shared in the article.
327.
by emp17344 1y ago
You’re gonna keep seeing takes like this until expectations meet the reality of the tools, because the hype is absolutely insane right now. I think it’s good to push back against the current narrative.
328.
by emp17344 1y ago
I bet with a little training, practically anyone could multiply 5 digit numbers reliably.
329.
by emp17344 1y ago
This exact statement could be said about literally any corporation or organization. And yet, corporations still lie and mislead, because deception helps you make money and acquire funding. In OpenAI’s case, this isn’t exactly the first time
330.
by emp17344 1y ago
Any company will apologize when they receive bad press. That’s basic corporate PR, not integrity.

More ›