This is firmly where I am. "The wonder is not how well the dog dances, it is that it dances at all."

"It's like if a squirrel started playing chess and instead of "holy shit this squirrel can play chess!" most people responded with "But his elo rating sucks""

It's more like "We were promised, over and over again, that the squirrel would be autonomous grand master level. We spent insane amounts of money, labour, and opportunity costs of human progress on this. Now, here's a very expensive squirrel, that still needs guidance from a human grandmaster, and most of it's moves are just replications of existing games. Oh, it also can't move the pieces by itself, so it depends on Piece Mover library."

even a squirrel that needs guidance from a human grandmaster, is heavily inspired by existing games, and who can use Piece Mover library is incredible. 5 years ago the squirrel was just a squirrel. then it was able to make legal moves. now it can play a whole game from start to finish, with help. that is incredible

I think the post you're responding to would agree, but is trying to make the argument that it isn't worth the cost:

> spent insane amounts of money, labour, and opportunity costs of human progress on this

That said, I would 100% approve of certain people pouring all their energy into AI to rather focus on teaching squirrels chess!

Any way you slice it: LLMs provide real utility today, right now. Even yesterday, before Opus/Codex were updated. So the money was not all for naught. It seems very plausible given the progress made so far that this new industry will continue to deliver significant productivity gains.

If you want to worry about something, let's worry about what happens to humanity when the world we've become accustomed to is yanked out from underneath us in a span of 10-20 years.

My opinion: you are critiquing electricity because the candles are still better / more affordable / more honestly made.

You seem to be mad that companies are in the business of selling us things. It's the way this whole thing works.

If you don't think this is impressive: stop everything you're doing and go make a c compiler that can build the Linux kernel.

For reference, I use LLMs daily for coding. I do think they are useful.

I am speaking about corporations and sales tactics, because this VERY experiment was done by exactly such a corporation. How about you think about how "this whole thing works", and apply it to their post? What did they not write? How many worse experiments did they not post about to not jeopardize investments?

I don't find this impressive, because it doesn't do anything I'd want, anything I'd need, anything the world needs, and it doesn't do anything new compared to my personal experience. Which, just to reiterate, is that LLMs are useful, just not nowhere close to as world shattering/ending as the CEOs are selling it. Acknowledging that has nothing to do with being a luddite.

To be a bit pedantic, I'm not accusing you of being a Luddite. That would mean that you were fundamentally opposed to a new technology that's obviously more useful.

Instead, in my opinion you are not giving enough grace to what is being demonstrated today.

This is my analogy: you're seeing electrical demonstrations in front of your very eyes, but because the charlatans who are funding the research haven't quite figured out how to harness it, you're dismissing the wonder. "That's all well and good, but my beeswax candles and gas lamps light my apartment just fine."

Until the juice is worth the squeeze, the beeswax candles and gas lamps are likely more than fine.

It is very impressive indeed, but impressiveness is not the same as usefulness. If important further features can’t get implemented anymore The usefulness is pretty limited. And usefulness further needs to be weighed against cost.

"The squirrel can do my job and more? It can do five years of my work in a month? For only $20k? Pssh, but I bet it copied someone's homework."

Developer salaries are about to tank.

This is the end of the line. People are just in denial.

Soon companies will hire the squirrel instead of you. And the squirrel will transform into enormous infrastructure we can't afford ourselves.

"One mega squirrel to implement your own operating system overnight. Just $100k."

It's going to be out of the reach of humans / ICs soon. Purely industrial. And all innovation will accrue to the capital holders.

Open weights models are our only hope of keeping a foot in the door.

This is really questionable outcome. So you'll have your own custom OS riddled with holes that AI won't be capable of fixing because the context and complexity became so high that running any small bug fix would cost thousands of dollars in tokens.

Is this how tech field ends? Overengineered brittle black-box monstrosities that nobody understands because important thing for business was "it does A, B, and C" and it doesn't matter how.

IF you want the code to be reviewed and maintained you still need a developer. A developer can craft a better spec.

I'm not trying to get coached in chess by the squirrel for 200 per month though.

But people have been telling us for years that the squirrel was going to improve at chess at an exponential rate and take over the world through sheer chess-mastery.

But the Squirrel is only playing chess because someone stuffed the pieces with food and it has learned that the only way to release it is by moving them around in some weird patterns.

I was also startled when I learned about the human ancestor who was the first to see a mirror.

The brilliance of AI is that it copies(mirrors) imperfectly and you can only look at part_of_the_copy(inference) at a time.

>It's weird to see the expectation that the result should be perfect.

Given that they spent $20k on it and it's basically just advertising targeted at convincing greedy execs to fire as many of us as they can, yeah it should be fucking perfect.

A symptom of the increasing backlash against generative AI (both in creative industries and in coding) is that any flaw in the resulting product is predicate to call it AI slop, even if it's very explicitly upfront that it's an experimental demo/proof of concept and not the NEXT BIG THING being hyped by influencers. That nuance is dead even outside of social media.

AI companies set that expectation when their CEOs ran around telling anyone who would listen that their product is a generational paradigm shift that will completely restructure both labor markets and human cognition itself. There is no nuance in their own PR, so why should they benefit from any when their product can't meet those expectations?

Because it leads to poor and nonconstructive discourse that doesn't educate anyone about the implications of the tech, which is expected on social media but has annoyingly leaked to Hacker News.

There's been more than enough drive-by comments from new accounts/green names even in this HN submission alone.

It does lead to poor non-constructive discourse. That's why we keep calling those CEOs to task on it. Why are you not?

The CEOs aren't here in the comments.

Which is why we ought to always bring up their BS every time people try to pretend it didn't happen.

The promises made are ABSOLUTELY relevant to how promising or not these experiments are.

I bet you get upset when you buy a new iPhone and don't love it, because Tim Cook said on the ad that they think you're going to love it.

It cannot be overstated how absurd the marketing campaign for AI was. OpenAI and Anthropic have convinced half the world that AI is going to become a literal god. They deserve to eat a lot of shit for those outright lies.

It's not just social media, it's IRL too.

Maybe the general population will be willing to have a more constructive discussions about this tech once the trillion dollar companies stop pillaging everything they see in front of them and cease acting like sociopaths whose only objectives seem to be concentrating power, generating dissidence and harvesting wealth.