My point is I don’t think a technology that went from chatgpt (cool, useless) to opus-4.5+ in 3 years is obviously being oversold when it says that it can do your entire job beyond being just a useful tool.
Maybe model capabilities WILL continue to improve rapidly for years to come, in which case, yes, at some point it will be possible to replace most or all white collar workers. In that case you are probably correct.
The other possibility is that capabilities will plateau at or not far above current levels because squeezing out further performance improvements simply becomes too expensive. In that case Cory Doctorow's argument seems sound. Currently all of these tools need human oversight to work well, and if a human is being paid to review everything generated by the AI, as Doctorow points out, they are effectively functioning as an accountability sink (we blame you when the AI screws up, have fun.)
I think it's worth bearing in mind that Geoffrey Hinton (infamously) predicted ten years ago that radiologists would all be out of a job in five years, when in fact demand for radiology has increased. He probably based this on some simple extrapolation from the rapid progress in image classification in the early 2010s. If image classification capabilities had continued to improve at that rate, he would probably have been correct.
[1] https://arxiv.org/html/2405.21015v1 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surge_AI
The claim made was that improving SotA models has historically taken exponentially more compute.
The claim implies that improving SotA models takes more compute even while integrating technological advancements to make models more efficient.
Unless you think that such advancements have been historically ignored by the curators of SotA models?
They justified it with the paper that states what you say, but that's exactly the problem. The statement of paper is significantly weaker than the claim that there's no progress without exponential increase in compute.
The statement of the the paper that SotA models require ever increasing compute, does not support "be careful when assuming that model capabilities will continue to grow" because it only speaks of ever growing models, but model capabilities of the models at the same compute cost continue growing too.
I would have been much more interested in reading the article you’re suggesting.
>What I do not do is predict the future. No one can predict the future, which is a good thing, since if the future were predictable, that would mean we couldn’t change it.
It feels like shoving words on Cory's mouth to make statements like "he's saying it can't replace us". That is the exact point he avoids in the article to focus on the human. Not the tech and capabilities.
Would you call something that could replace your labor "spicy auto complete"? He also evokes nfts and blockchain, for some reason. To me this phrasing makes it sound like he thinks they are damn near useless.
The headline.
I was accepting sodapopcan’s premise while responding to them. My joke was intended to be aimed at the posting guides and these little Hackernews traditions. But, it was a bit dismissive toward you, which is a little rude. Sorry.
I don't have much to offer here (and yes, sorry, after I made my snarky remark I realize you had indeed read the article). I recognize AI's capabilities but mainly don't use it primarily for political reasons but also because I just enjoy writing code. I'll sometimes use up the chatgpt free limit using it as a somewhat better search engine (and it's not always better) but there's no way I'm paying for agents, which is everything to do with where the money is going, not the money itself. Of course there are other reasons outside of how AI is used by programmers that would derail the general theme of these threads.
I'm just drawn to these threads for the drama and sometimes it triggers me and I write a snarky throwaway comment. If the discussions, and particularly the companies themselves, could shift to actual societal good it can do and how it is concretely getting there, that would hold my attention. Instead we get Sona etc.
The piece isn’t claiming that AI tools are useless or that they don’t materially improve day-to-day work. In fact, it more or less assumes the opposite. The critique is about the economic and organizational story being told around AI, not about whether an individual developer can ship faster today.
Saying “these tools now do a considerable portion of my work” operates on the micro level of personal productivity. Doctorow is operating on the macro level: how firms reframe human labor as “automation,” push humans into oversight and liability roles, and use exaggerated autonomy claims to justify valuations, layoffs, and cost-cutting.
Ironically, the “Wile E. Coyote running off a cliff” metaphor aligns more with the article than against it. The whole “reverse centaur” idea is that jobs don’t disappear instantly; they degrade first. People keep running because the system still sort of works, until the ground is gone and the responsibility snaps back onto humans.
So there’s no contradiction between “this saves me hours a day” and “this is being oversold in ways that will destabilize jobs and business models.” Those two things can be true at the same time. The comment seems to rebut “AI doesn’t work,” which isn’t really the claim being made.