WhyOhWhyQ

This is how I am except with nostalgia content, which I cannot see as just content.

It is however impossible for me to play the latest games or watch the latest shows for 10 minutes without feeling like my time is being wasted.

All mediums for creativity are not equivalent. We're killing off the good ones and replacing them with bad ones.

Thank you person. You have improved my day.

Your position cannot distinguish stealing somebody's likeness and looking at them.

We're about to witness a fundamental shift in the human experience. Some time in the near future there will not be a single act of creation you can do that isn't trivial compared to the result of typing "make cool thing please now" into the computer. And your position is to add to the problem because with your policy anything I create should get chucked into the LLM grinder by any and everybody. How do I get my human body to commit to doing hard things with that prospect at hand? This is the end of happiness.

It doesn't seem hard to imagine 2-5 years from now when "memes in Ghibli style" turns into "pay us 25 cents and we'll send you a 30 minute cartoon in Ghibli style".

The technology is not just less than superintelligence, for many applications it is less than prior forms of intelligence like traditional search and Stack Exchange, which were easily accessible 3 years ago and are in the process of being displaced by LLMs. I find that outcome unimpressive.

And this Tweeter's complaints do not sound like a demand for superintelligence. They sound like a demand for something far more basic than the hype has been promising for years now. - "They continue to fabricate links, references, and quotes, like they did from day one." - "I ask them to give me a source for an alleged quote, I click on the link, it returns a 404 error." (Why have these companies not manually engineered out a problem like this by now? Just do a check to make sure links are real. That's pretty unimpressive to me.) - "They reference a scientific publication, I look it up, it doesn't exist." - "I have tried Gemini, and actually it was even worse in that it frequently refuses to even search for a source and instead gives me instructions for how to do it myself." - "I also use them for quick estimates for orders of magnitude and they get them wrong all the time. " - "Yesterday I uploaded a paper to GPT to ask it to write a summary and it told me the paper is from 2023, when the header of the PDF clearly says it's from 2025. "

From my perspective it's almost exactly opposite. Almost all of the people I consider exceptionally talented are vying for positions in academia (I'm in mathematics), and the people who don't make it begrudgingly accept jobs at the software houses / research labs.

I'm frequently and sadly reminded when I visit this website that lot of (smart) people can't seem imagine any form of success that doesn't include common social praise and monetary gain.

The answer is pretty damn sad.

> Come and work with me on Anthropic's Frontier Red Team

Twice as sad.

It's not an "appeal to authority" to report on the opinions of tech leaders. The only way it would make sense to call this an appeal to authority is if you think TechCrunch is making an argument for a side. This just looks like ordinary reporting, however.

I've pointed this out to a few people in this space. They tend to suggest that the value in AI is so great this means we should get rid of copyright law entirely.

Books aren't just a lower quality version of dialog with a person though. They operate entirely differently. With very few people can you think quietly for 30 minutes straight without talking, but with a book you can put it down and come back to it at will.

I don't think professional programmers were using notepad in 1985. Here's talk of IDEs from an article from 1985: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/800225.806843 It mentions Xerox Development Environment, from 1977 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Development_Environment

The feedback loop for programming / mathematics / other things I've studied was not a week in the year 2019. In that ancient time the feedback look was maybe 10% slower than with any of these LLMs since you had to look at Google search.

In the podcast the example he gave as a kind of project which could lead to "super-intelligence" (the kind of project nation states would be interested in sabotaging, according to his theory) is one in which the AI is trained to be an LLM researcher. The idea then is to run thousands of these LLM researchers to train the next generation of LLMs. Their paper probably has more specifics.

I don't remember exactly what was suggested would be the forms of sabotage. He also suggested export controls on the high value chips used for training and running models.

Robert Wright just posted a (somewhat) interesting conversation with one of the authors.

His thesis involves at least two ideas (1) projects which could exponentially increase our AI capability are just around the corner (will happen by the end of this year or some time next year at the latest) (2) it's possible for state actors to deter those projects with sabotage (he coins the term Mutually Assured AI Malfunction).

It doesn't make sense to me however because the cost of the next AI breakthrough just doesn't sound comparable to the cost of creating nuclear weapons. With nuclear weapons you need this extremely expensive and time consuming process, and you need to invest in training these extremely skilled people. With AI, the way everyone seems to talk about it, it sounds like some random undergraduate is going to come along and cause a massive breakthrough. We've already seen Deepseek come along and do just as well as the best American companies for practically pennies on the dollar.

Just because it's common parlance does not mean it's a good practice. HN is supposed to be a forum for reasoned discussion. Any kind of sophistry or propaganda should be called out. Since Trump describes his regime as having an "unprecedented and powerful mandate", and this is actually incorrect in several ways, it is worth drawing the distinction here.

Another way in which Trump is incorrect is that his election victory margin is average among presidential elections in terms of both electoral vote margin and popular vote margin.

262m is the estimate for the "Population of Voting Age for Each State and the District of Columbia". Not all of these are voters, and only malicious thinking could lead to the conclusion that these people are all happy (or unhappy) with Trump.

I suspect you're conflating the concepts of intelligence and consciousness. It is completely unsurprising that a Turing Machine can have intelligence.

It's just a matter of fact that more than half of the US did not vote for this regime. You can object that more than half of the US did not vote for any president, and we would agree.

77 million people voted for Trump. The US has 340 million people. 22.6% of the US voted for this.

That link brings me to a 404 page.

What are you doing those 3 or 4 days a week of earning money, if you don't mind me asking?

Doesn't every generic Republican always support all of those things? Did you support any more normal Republican alternative to Trump, given his bad performance during the initial outbreak of Covid?

> "Agree that energy use is ethical."

Energy use is clearly neither ethical nor unethical in the abstract.

> "But only through automation do we improve materially as a species!"

Technology is not the only cause of change, and not all changes caused by technology are improvements. I believe the changes caused by LLMs are strict setbacks for humanity as a whole, but we will see.

If a study comes out which demonstrates to high confidence that some extremely horrible outcome is certain with this technology, would any changes be made? Would we tell OpenAI to close shop? I don't think, with the way our society and politics is set up, we would be able to deal with this. There's too much money, ego, and general inertia at play to change course.

I just can't enjoy art anymore in this brave new world.

"Early adopters will be early adopters. And early adopters aren't the kind of people relying on an LLM to tell them what to try out."

Why is this? 'Early adopter' is a pretty arbitrary category of people.

"Prompt engineering may be a highly skilled activity or even an art."

Yea... That Wall-E ship is our future isn't it?

Right, though I don't see much distinction given that the cost of training the models is so high. The existence of the technology is equivalent to the existence of these businesses, is it not?

Suppose the technology advances no further than it is today, and I'll even grant up to an order of magnitude improvement. I'm not interested in speculating over so-called AGI though. What would you point to as an overwhelmingly positive justification of its existence? I won't argue against it. I'm just curious.

At this point I think the burden of proof should be on ML people to explain why that shouldn't be my goal. Every person in that industry has stated that the technology is going to displace 30% of jobs within the decade. Why should anybody support something which is certain to absolutely destroy society while simultaneously having no positive payoff?

Since my goal is to see the failure of LLM technology, I think this is fantastic.