meowface
We're nowhere close to the ceiling on LLMs alone, let alone AI in general. What about when they can run entire firms themselves? Like, this is just assuming Opus 4.6 is the best we could ever get, in which case, yeah, the notion of AI is simply a dead-end technology. But obviously it's not going to be the best we could ever get.
As for the rest of your post: bizarre to see such ignorant slopulist drivel on HN of all places. Is this a YouTube comment section or an attempt at an intellectual message board?
Some people just start out with wanting LLMs/AI/Anthropic to fail or be scams and consistently try to fit any new evidence pegs into those unchanging hypothesis-shaped holes. This group ideologically despised LLMs from the start and needs them to be fake.
As said: 1 - 2 years, not current ones.
The people who feel fear about AI taking their jobs or doing worse things are not coping. They're saying all this is real and impressive and that that is why they are terrified.
The people saying it's bad and lies and they stole the answer and a million other things are just in tribal mode throwing whatever at the wall to defer to the pre-existing conclusion that AI is a corporate hoax. AI would have to be real to fear it in this professional and existential way, but they know it's fake, so they're not afraid.
It's sometimes done with more subtlety, like "it just comes up with some proofs by connecting existing things, it is not producing new insights, it's not creative or truly generating ideas". Which may be partly true. The denialism is shifted into refusing to acknowledge that within 20, or 2, years it probably will be producing new insights.
Prolonged conversations with humans and AIs about both ideas and code is very useful.
>Say you want to draw a perfect picture of an owl. You have this beautiful image of it in your mind. But you can’t draw very well, and in this analogy the drawing is the code. So what comes out is a stick-figure owl that’s barely recognizable as an owl.
>In the code-is-the-source-of-truth version, that stick figure is now the authoritative artifact. We analyze it, document it, take notes on its proportions, and spend a whole bunch of time iterating on it. We’re running in circles around a bad drawing.
My only disagreement with the post is over whether articulating is is the main bottleneck. Right now, there are still issues and oversights humans would tend not to make even if you have model context and documentation accurately and clearly capturing your full intent.
Each year will decrease the rate of this, but software engineering will probably need until maybe 2030 until we've crossed a threshold towards solely being product managers/designers. This advice still applies today, but you do need more wrangling on top.
The core issue with him, in my view, is his openly anti-democratic views.
He identifies as a libertarian, yet finds democracy loathsome and either wants a monarch or finds it strategically useful to fund and support initiatives that increase the chance of there being increasingly monarchical leaders in places like the US. I don't think that is a moral ideology, and I also think it is generally not a good one for achieving positive outcomes for a majority of people.
There are genuine critiques of democracy and its tendency towards shallow populism ruling everything, but, as usual, the meme defense is the correct defense; it's better than alternatives, like permanent "rule by 'CEO-monarch'".
1) Where possible, don't test in animals.
2) When testing in animals, first ensure that there is reasonable confidence the risk and severity of harm from the testing will be minimal. Only begin initial in vivo testing after this has first been achieved.
3) For test animals that are or aren't harmed, allow them to live happy, (relatively) normal, natural lives. Don't end their life early unnecessarily, with exceptions for humane euthanasia if the testing has unexpectedly caused significant, persistent suffering. Treat them as a pet owner would treat their beloved pet rat.
Some may consider it extreme, but, in my view, in an ideal world, people would treat testing in animals almost like testing in humans. The researcher should first ask "would I feel comfortable testing this in a voluntary human test subject?" Non-human animals would still be the first line of testing, since harm/death in a rat/mouse/chimpanzee is less morally bad than in a human, but I think this should be the mindset.
I thought a looped transformer is in fact reasoning more in latent space, though "reasoning" in a somewhat different way from the standard reasoning token approach.
You're saying you think there might be machine demigods in 50 years, but that one shouldn't use the pace of AI advances today to update positively on the probability of that?
Unless Gemini CLI greatly improves and Argon works well in it, this probably won't make a dent in the coding market.
I did negatively update based on reports of colleagues saying he has a tendency to be deceptive, though.
But, yes, there should probably be laws that make it so if you summon a demon that causes a mass casualty event you face criminal penalties.
I am not saying I trust them not to make a mistake that leads to catastrophe. OpenAI in particular is not doing a great job. Anthropic or OpenAI may in fact indirectly kill millions or billions of people. I still think they're probably less clownish than most possible alternatives.
I don't think anyone or anything can really be trusted with this. We need extremely strict international and national regulations, before things really start accelerating (we are still in the very very early stage). I still just don't really feel any specific disdain for OpenAI or Anthropic (particularly Anthropic).
Ideally we'd have some international treaties that allow the top labs in America and China share information and coordinate as systems become increasingly capable.