slaterbug

For the uninformed, what large negative impact has Robinhood had on society?

“…the only workable future to me seems like forcing agents/robots to be tied to humans.”

This is what I’ve been thinking lately as well. Couple that with legal responsibility for any repercussions, and you might have a way society can thrive alongside AI and robotics.

I think any AI or robotic system acting upon the world in some way (even LLM chatbots) should require a human “co-signer” who takes legal responsibility for anything the system does, as if they had performed the action themselves.

Excuse my ignorance, how do these companies evaluate their models against the evaluation set without access to it?

Do you happen to have a copy of that article? I’d love to read it.

> Meanwhile, we have LLMs accepting bullshit tasks and completing them.

Would you mind elaborating on that? I’m not quite sure what you mean.

Like a supercharged version of rubber duck debugging.

I don't have much to add myself, but there was a bit of discussion around this back in August that you might be interested in: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44831811

There's a number of "robotics and embodied AI" ETFs out there that should show up with a quick search. I don't have an opinion as to their quality so you'd have to do your own research.

I feel called out :)

I’ve been daydreaming lately about what the fundamental limits of “intelligence” could be, something like the concept of computability but for AI, or even biological brains.

Though I will say, surely the existence of the human brain (which by definition is general intelligence), suggests that creating AGI is fundamentally possible?

What evidence is there that AGI will come “soon”?

That’s a nice prospect. What worries me is the point at which I’m no longer a required part of the problem solving process.

Scary.

You don't program at all now? It's all generated?

I only ask because I find myself on the tools most of the time still. The difference in how different people experience this tech is astounding sometimes.

A great idea if you're looking to intentionally sabotage AI.

Yeah, they filmed it on Ganymede instead.

Of course not, I just think the idea of little humanoid robots being controlled remotely, running around doing deliveries and such would be amusing.

The potential applications of this tech in war is concerning of course, but we don't have to allow that. And the more I've thought about it over time, I find the prospect of combat robots much less terrifying than the FPV drones we've been seeing used in Ukraine, or being obliterated by an unseen, unheard drone flying kilometers up in the sky before you even know what's happening.

Or they’ll claim it’s no different from a person looking at something and learning from it, implying that a multi-billion dollar company collating and labelling petabytes of data without permission to be used as the raw material to create their slop machine is no different from a human being being inspired by someone else’s art.

I bought a new pair of glasses online on Saturday evening as I couldn't be bothered going to a store to try them on. The website had a "virtual try on" feature that would overlay the glasses on your face, and even though the result wasn't great (lighting was off etc. so it wasn't a genuine reflection of what they'd look like), I thought it was pretty cool / useful. An AI-powered version of that which could make it look real would be killer, as long as what you're shown matches the product and isn't some hallucinated bastardisation.

Honestly, it sounds like it would be really funny to me.

Whether or not it is AGI, it seems very reductive to classify something like Claude Code as "just a better search engine".

Enjoy the calm before the storm, while it lasts.

I’ve also been focusing on squirreling away as much cash as possible before I’m eventually laid off.

My partner and I have basically decided not to have children at this point for the exact reason you stated. The rate of change at the moment is dizzying and I’m not sure that the future we’re heading toward is one that I’d want my kids to be part of.

Context matters a lot here - it may fail on this problem within a particular context (what the original commenter was working on), but then be able to solve it when presented with the question in isolation. The way your phrase the question may hint the model towards the answer as well.

Genuine question, are these companies just including those "obscure" problems in their training data, and overfitting to do well at answering them to pump up their benchmark scores?

> Whenever we have had a paradigm shift in our ability to process information, we have grappled with it by shifting to higher-level tasks.

People say this all the time, but I think it's a very short-sighted view. It really begs the question: do you believe that there are tasks that exist which a human can do, but we could not train an AI to also do? The difference between AI and any other technological advancement is that AI is (or promises to be, and I have no reason to believe otherwise) a tool that can be adapted to any task. I don't think analogies to history really apply here.

> I feel like a lot of AI angst comes from people who place their self-worth and value on external validation. There is value in simply existing and doing what you want to do even if nobody else wants it.

I agree on this point, and have come to that conclusion myself regarding my own AI angst. However that doesn't solve the economic issues that arise from this technology. As large swathes of the workforce becomes replaced (something that, in my opinion, is rapidly approaching), how do we organise society so that everyone can survive / thrive?

As far as I can see there is very little impetus behind tackling such issues, compared to the forces pushing this tech forward so rapidly.

This is digressing a bit, but I don't buy that space exploration will be more interesting than anything you can see on Earth.

Aren't other planets / moons etc. basically just barren deserts of rock and dust? Once you get over the novelty of it, it will basically just be the shittiest and most uncomfortable place you've ever been.

You’ve intentionally hamstrung your test by choosing an inferior model though.

Maybe it makes sense for you, however from their perspective, it's not an "irrelevant" part of the selection process, but the most important part.