Right I’m a bot made to promote AI like half the people on this thread.
I don’t know if you noticed a difference from other hype cycles but other ones were speculative. This one is also speculative but the greater divide is that the literal on the ground usefulness of AI is ALREADY going to change the world.
The speculation is that the AI will get better and will no longer need hand holding.
I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what you're trying to convey. You say there's a difference from previous "speculation" but also that it's still speculation. Then you go on to write "ALREADY going to" which is future tense (speculation), even clarifying what the speculation is.
So let me explain it more clearly. AI as it is now is already changing the game. It will reduce the demand of swes across every company as an eventuality if we hold technological progress fixed. There is no speculation here. This comes from on the ground evidence from what I see day to day and what I do and my experience pair programming things from scratch with AI.
The speculation is this: if we follow the trendlines of AI improvement for the past decade and a half, the projection of past improvement indicates AI will only get better and better. It’s a reasonable speculation, but it is nonetheless speculative. I wouldn’t bet my life on continuous improvement of AI to the point of AGI but it’s now more than ever before a speculation that is not unrealistic.
Nice slop response. This is the same thing said about blockchain and NFTs, same schtick, different tech. The only thing "AI" has done is convince some people that it's a magical being that knows everything. Your comments seem to be somewhere on that spectrum. And, sure what if it isn't changing the world for the better, and actually makes things much worse? You're probably okay with that too, I guess, as long as your precious "AI" is doing the changing.
We've seen what social media and every-waking-hour access to tablets and the internet has done to kids - so much harm that some countries have banned social media for people under a certain age. I can see a future where "AI" will also be banned for minors to use, probably pretty soon too. The harms from "AI" being able to placate instead of create should be obvious, and children shouldn't be able to use it without adult supervision.
>The speculation is that the AI will get better and will no longer need hand holding.
This is nonsense. No AI is going to produce what someone wants without telling it exactly what to do and how to do it, so yes, it will always need hand holding, unless you like slurping up slop. I don't know you, if you aren't a bot, you might just be satisfied with slop? It's a race to the bottom, and it's not going to end up the way you think it will.
>This is nonsense. No AI is going to produce what someone wants without telling it exactly what to do and how to do it, so yes, it will always need hand holding, unless you like slurping up slop. I don't know you, if you aren't a bot, you might just be satisfied with slop? It's a race to the bottom, and it's not going to end up the way you think it will.
You're not thinking clearly. A couple years ago we didn't even have AI who could do this, then chatGPT came out we had AI who could barely do it, then we had AI who could do simple tasks with A lot of hand holding, now we have AI who can do complex human tasks with minimal hand holding. Where do you think the trendline is pointing.
Your hypothesis is going against all evidence. It's more wishful thinking and irrational. It's a race to the bottom because you wish it will be a race to the bottom, and we both know the trendline is pointing in the opposite direction.
>We've seen what social media and every-waking-hour access to tablets and the internet has done to kids - so much harm that some countries have banned social media for people under a certain age. I can see a future where "AI" will also be banned for minors to use, probably pretty soon too. The harms from "AI" being able to placate instead of create should be obvious, and children shouldn't be able to use it without adult supervision.
I agree AI is bad for us. My claim is it's going to change the world and it is already replacing human tasks. That's all. Whether that's good or bad for us is an ORTHOGANOL argument.
I use AI every day, and it's honestly crap. No it isn't significantly improving, it's hitting a wall. Every new model release is getting less and less good, so no, the "trendline" is not going up as much as you seem to think it is. It's plateaued. The only way "AI" is going to change the world is if stupid people put it in places that it really shouldn't be, thinking it will solve problems and not create even more problems.
Proof of what? Should you also have to prove you are not a bot sponsored by short-sellers? It’s all so so silly, anti-AI crowds on HN rehash so many of the same tired arguments it’s ridiculous:
- bad for environment: how? Why?
- takes all creative output and doesn’t credit: common crawl has been around for decades and models have been training for decades, the difference is that now they’re good. Regurgitating training data is a known issue for which there are mitigations but welcome to the world of things not being as idealistic as some Stallman-esque hellscape everyone seems to want to live in
- it’s bad and so no one should use it and any professionals who do don’t know what they’re doing: I have been so fortunate to personally know some of the brightest minds on this planet (Astro departmentments, AI research labs) and majority of them use AI for their jobs.
>Should you also have to prove you are not a bot sponsored by short-sellers?
On a 35 day-old account, yes. Anything "post-AI" is suspect now.
The rest of your comment reads like manufactured AI slop, replying to things I never even wrote in my one sentence comment. And no surprise coming from an account created 1 day ago.
I think it’s quite obvious I’m not writing AI slop.
The latest chatgpt for example will produce comments that are now distinguishable from the real thing only because they’re much better written. It’s insane that the main visible marker rn is that the arguments and writings it crafts are superior then what your average joe can write.
My shit writing can’t hold a candle and that’s pretty obvious. AI slop is not accepted here but I can post an example of what AI slop will now look like, if AI responded to you it would look like this:
Fair to be skeptical of new accounts. But account age and “sounds like AI” are not workable filters for truth. Humans can write like bots, bots can write like humans, and both can be new. That standard selects for tenure, not correctness.
More importantly, you did not engage any claim. If the position is simply “post-AI content from new accounts is suspect,” say that as a moderation concern. But as an argument, suspicion alone does not refute anything.
Pick one concrete claim and say why it is wrong or what evidence would change your mind. Otherwise “this reads like slop” is just pattern matching. That is exactly the failure mode being complained about.
I accused another user of writing AI slop in this specific thread, and here you are inserting yourself as if you are replying to comment I made to the other user. You certainly seem desperate to boost "AI" as much as you can. Your 37 day old account is also just as suspect as their 3 day old account. I'm not engaging with you any more so replying is kind of pointless.
