simianwords

What would AI have to do to cross the threshold at which would stop calling it Normal Technology?

Why do you think they are buying compute and accelerating to RSI? It’s for this.

My work slack used to have lots of questions. Now very less. That should be celebrated because we don’t have to depend on anyone. But I guess you can paint anything in a bad way.

OT: I found this style of writing extremely clear and readable. I wonder what is different about this author’s writing. There is zero pretension and just exists to impart information. But if that’s the case why do I hate the writing in Wikipedia?

Thought terminating cliche

eh its the age old "its actually a class issue you see, the elites wanna do something something and they are distracting you"

Its very Marxist (or Marx adjacent), though Marx himself would agree that technology is not neutral and it determines progress.

I respectfully disagree. Everyone I speak to in my circle, as well as in HN oppose AI because it is sold as much more capable than it actually is.

I asked ChatGPT to sample comments in HN without bias and find out which mode of opposition is more popular. Here's what it said

https://chatgpt.com/share/6abf5e0e-c45c-83eb-a3f6-b676b08f13...

>“AI is overhyped or less useful than claimed” was substantially more prevalent than “AI is genuinely capable and will take people’s jobs.” That held across two random samples of recent HN comments.

To steel-man your position, it is true that Bernie Sanders also opposes AI because it can cause automation. And that my bubble in tech might be biased because it consists of a certain kind of cynical person to think of everything as hype.

“Amodei is spreading fake news and doing hype marketing to fool investors into investing in Anthropic so that he can cash it in before the bubble pops”

Unfortunately I don’t see much evidence of AI connecting dots. What’s interesting to me is that this is more of a run time or inference problem, instead of emergent from training itself.

For example, if there were hypothetically some dots to be connected between the world war and some geological event - you need to make AI brute force and do an O(N) scan at run time. But it wouldn’t have learned it during training. Why?

Most people who oppose AI don’t oppose it because it’s so good it can replace us. They oppose it because, in their own words, they think it’s hype and it doesn’t work. The first step is to collectively agree that yes, AI is powerful and it can replace us at work. Then we can speak about how to protect livelihood. How does one even have a discussion when the other side doesn’t even believe in the capabilities of AI?

Edit: not sure why I'm being downvoted because there are replies literally taking the exact position that I'm saying is more prevalent.

The shape of five stages of grief is something I see recurring in AI discourse. It also happened with programmers - they are currently at bargaining.

Some are still at denial. “It’s all hype like NFT and crypto, the bubble will pop soon”.

I made a bet with a guy on HN that the market value of OpenAI + Anthropic would get to at least 2.5T by 2027. I think I'm on track to winning.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48517353

I also made a bet that API inference margins are greater than 10% for OpenAI and Anthropic

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48500827

I can make another prediction about Agentic Commerce and I think it will get big. Muse + Grok Bot + Dots.

If an AWS DDOSes another external website by mistake during a load test, should Jeff Bezos be a free man?

Astra at light is worse than sol at light tbh

I agree. Its so strange to see an institution externalising their specific problems. If they have a problem, they should adapt and fix it amongst themselves.

I disagree with this.

OpenAI should be allowed to produce whatever it wants but it just can't claim that it has actually solved without the due process like peer review. If for example OpenAI solves a new conjecture, OpenAI should be free to publish it in their blog or arxiv in whatever way they desire. It can be slop, it can be non-slop. No one should police it.

Mathematicians are free to use it or discard it. They shouldn't externalise their concerns and restrict labs.

Mathematics is seen today as the noblest and most aristocratic of professions. Turns out, AI disrupts it because access to capital/compute now decides the results. Mathematicians don't like this corruption - understandable.

Its like guild of accountants opposing the calculator and require a responsible release. haha

??

This explains why large scale unemployment is not preferable even for capitalists. But this is well known and the policies are usually made to prevent it.

this also happened with the internet. 6T is possible only if AI creates more wealth. same as with internet. Its not a zero sum game.

Knowing that Zitron wrote about this makes me think that 6T will actually be reached, given Zitron's abysmal track record.

I made a bet with a guy on HN that the market value of OpenAI + Anthropic would get to at least 2.5T by 2027. I think I'm on track to winning.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48517353

?! this model launch was around 10% of the dev day and the other time was spent on Dots and things other than models.

I hear that Dots don't count towards usage, is that true?

> Things can be regulated in sensible countries where the things are pretty much single use - like guns.

Sure and there are regulations on who can own guns and licenses. And that's literally how Mythos is handed out today - to trusted partners. What is your opinion about that?

Also, companies are not allowed to release stuff like Nuclear technology, chemical weapons etc. These literally can't be regulated and a single adversary can use it destructively.

"but but they are just tools ok" doesn't work when the capability is big enough.

Look, it might be easy sitting behind a computer asking OpenAI to release whatever new model because you personally don't think you will be affected. But the society needs to be careful on what it hands potential adversaries.

> So you are telling me Sol can't be used for hacking?

Who said anything about hacking? You can use it, but it is very restricted. But a much more capable model must have much higher restrictions on alignment. Obviously you wouldn't need to spend too much on alignment on a 3B gemma model. This must be obvious, I'm not sure why you bring this up?

> They didn't need to do that - they can just release when ready - nobody is expecting them to release a new model on a certain date.

Again a conspiracy theory? People expected a model during Dev Day. And they are just setting expectations. Whats with you guys and conspiracy theories?

Bigger models require better alignment. So I would assume that the newer models will undergo more stringent alignment checks. For instance, I wouldn't put that much effort on GPT 4.

Why would you expect something else?

what have they done that they require jail?

> Note if somebody else is using OpenAI models to generate code to hack - that's not OpenAI's responsibility it's the person using and running the generated code.

No, I don't think a company can get away from releasing a powerful tool that can cause disruption if used poorly. This is just not how society works.

The reality is that labs will get blamed for things people do using it. And they have - look at any news about US Army using Claude etc

> The other point is if their new model isn't safe, doesn't that mean all their previous models aren't safe as well?

This understanding comes from the fact that people think either models are fundamentally unsafe or they are completely safe. The reality is that there are different levels of alignment possible. So it is really a tradeoff between effort/time taken to align the model and speed of release.

> If they're so much in a hurry to ship that they can't even test what they're building properly, they must be held responsible for that - and I say this as one of their customers and users, not as a random Joe that dislikes LLMs

You are replying to a post where they are doing exactly that. But you analysed it as if they are secretly in a cash crunch and trying to keep the lights on.

You and I both agree that delaying release is the rational response.

What's the necessity for the conspiracy theory, when the simple explanation is that they are delaying the release for safety reasons?