Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • Is 100x even controversial anymore? Anyone can do it by just throwing the whole backlog at AI and let it go crazy. What's the bottleneck? You don't need to babysit LLMs anymore. The problem is that you can only keep up with so much, but it's obvious that a lot of people and companies don't care about that.
    by Kiro
  • > Is 100x even controversial anymore?

    Are you making 100x more profit or at least revenue? 50x more? 20x more?

    Show me the company making even 10x more and I might be amenable to the argument that it isn’t controversial.

    by lovich
  • Yeah 100x is definitely still controversial. 100x means you should be able to whip up a new OS in a week.

    Looking at something like Anthropic's attempt to write a C compiler in rust. That definitely wasn’t 100x. It took 2 weeks to build something that wasn’t a viable c compiler. And that was best possible scenario. A very comprehensive spec, an existing implementation to act as an oracle, and existing compilers in the training data.

    by sarchertech
  • Feel like AI prep vanished cold blood ambushed into a 5-point kidney, thistle tea'd then MfD 5-point eviscerated my career, when all I was doing was gathering peaceblooms in silvermoon when I should've trinketed the kidney death coil into a fear. It is what it is
    by rubylimetea
  • https://ludic.mataroa.blog/blog/ai-mania-is-eviscerating-glo...

    https://hermit-tech.com/blog/ai-mania-is-eviscerating-global...

    by toomuchtodo
  • Dupe. Prior discussion 7 days ago and 77pts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48956153
    by andsoitis
  • I don't think this specific post is a dupe.
    by 650
  • No.

    Your link is the original post by Nikhil.

    This page is Gruber's commentary on Nikhil's original post.

    We make sure to click the link and read the article before posting here. Please follow that rule in future.

    by suprjami
  • I've been reflecting on Generative AI in the context of broader sociological and cultural theories. This article is reminding me of these things and I'm curious what other think.

    #1: George Soros' concept of reflexivity, where human biases begin informing, distorting, and supporting asset prices not because of their underlying fundamentals, but because of the human biases that have contributed to their prior appreciation. As per the essay being cited, if you are a CEO committing to AI as a strategy, you will also commit resources to double down on the technology. Your own identity becomes tied to it, whether you realize it or not, and you'll keep pushing for it and maybe even ignore facts that challenge the success of your investment.

    #2: Marshall McLuhan (of "The Medium is the Message" fame) argues that we need to understand communication and entertainment technologies in terms of the structure they impose on us. While social media is seen as a societal ill by many, its original idea of connecting people is fundamentally, well, social... GenAI is very much a non-social (i.e., you experience it on your own) convenience technology. It gives you answers, it writes code, and it implies an authoritative perspective that is always available to you, as an imperfect human. What will this mean for our own identities as human beings?

    I am very much a supporter of foundation models, LLMs, AI, etc. but can't help and think about some of the ideas above. Curious what others think.

    by cl42
  • I’m curious what makes you a supporter, as you say? Supporting the companies that make them or the developers themselves pushing the technology forward or the impacts of the proliferation of the LLMs’ usage or something else?
    by ebb_earl_co