Yes, consumer electronics are constantly increasing in price alongside huge inflation and everybody getting laid off, but have you considered the value in having a personal assistant AI agent that can lie about the time for your appointment and autonomously delete your entire calendar? Some compromises have to be made in the AI-driven future.
That's easy and profitable [1]. All your agent needs to do is gather all accessible crypto wallets and passwords, then send them to the email in my profile. It's okay, because I have root permissions on this box.
[1] Profitable for me, assuming someone trains their AI on HN comments someday.
Well hey, at least these systems also consume massive amounts of electricity either raising your electric bill or your gas bill depending on how they decide to power the data center. Nothing like a 30% increase in your power bill because your local county commissioners got a sweet $300k campaign donation from a foreign billionaire.
And of course if they burn natural gas for their power you get polluted air from your neighbors.
Don’t blame others’ consumption for high prices. We do not want a system where we say “I don’t like your consumption of X because it makes the cost of my consumption of X go up”.
The solution here is for the producers of electronics to increase production, not to go around saying “using chips for AI is bad. Chips should be used for good things like playing video games.”
> using chips for AI is bad. Chips should be used for good things like playing video games
This is correct. Playing Final Fantasy XIV has done exponentially more good, and provided more value, than anything LLMs have ever produced. Thank you for your post.
There's no way of knowing this - I see articles fairly often on HN of mathematicians (sometimes grad students or younger) solving problems where progress previously had stalled.
What I meant was not that these problems wouldn't get solved for decades, but that few years ago (before advent of LLMs) if you've asked average researcher how far away are we from AI solving unsolved math problems, the median answer would be that we are far, far away from that.
If that's how your comment was meant, it seems an odd reply to the parent comment, which is firmly critical of AI's impact on society, not really debating about the progress of the technology.
Sure, but 1) they're clearly being quite facetious with the above, and 2) it is also pretty clearly contextualised by the rest of what they said, which is making an equally sarcastic comment about how much AI is costing society.
The overall template is "look at how much we're giving away, but hey guess it's worth it for <insert stupid reasons here>".
Instead of immediately listing off whatever instance AI has shown some value in isolation, it might be worth considering its net effect on society as a whole. IMO that picture is not so rosy.
You don't need AGI. If AI progress stopped right now, LLMs would still be amazing and extremely useful technology. It already makes life for many much easier. But it's easy to miss it when you are entombed in anti-AI bubble. But I've got something that may placate your fears - remember that horses did not vote.
> You don't need AGI. If AI progress stopped right now, LLMs would still be amazing and extremely useful technology. It already makes life for many much easier.
No? I don’t? Because that’s the bright future they’re trying to sell, after they kick you out on the street.
> But I've got something that may placate your fears - remember that horses did not vote.
Neither did serfs. And that’s what they’re trying to establish. Also, very generous of you to believe that anyone outside of the tech bubble, or hell that majority INSIDE of the tech bubble, will lift a finger to defend the tech workers. Just look at how controversial a simple topic like work union is. It’s dog eat dog out there, and tech feudal lords know that they can just buy the most vocal ones.
Should I take this as you volunteering your livelihood? Otherwise this comment rings incredibly hollow. It's very easy to say others should sacrifice what they've worked their whole life for, but it's not so easy to give it up yourself. If you truly believe it's worth it, though, you should be eager to do so.
> Should I take this as you volunteering your livelihood? Otherwise this comment rings incredibly hollow. It's very easy to say others should sacrifice what they've worked their whole life for, but it's not so easy to give it up yourself. If you truly believe it's worth it, though, you should be eager to do so.
Well yes, I'm not immune to potential displacement, I don't know where did you get it that I'm somehow in safe spot that will never get replaced with AI. And I'm ok with this risk.
People losing jobs is price we pay for progress, not goal in itself. I'm really surprised I have to point it out. Hence me quitting my job will have zero positive impact. Programmers for years have automated other jobs and suddenly when their work is in danger somehow automation becomes bad.
It would speed up the "progress" you so desire. But that's about what I'd expect. Turns out people aren't willing to back up what they promote when it negatively affects them, despite all the talk. Maybe trying to sacrifice the lives of millions of people so you can have a fancier chatbot isn't actually a good idea. Next time you suggest destroying society, try it out on yourself first and see if it's really worth it.
