Birbla

Join the discussion

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

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • I'd love to see Huang's definition of abstraction in which AI is somehow "a new abstraction level" but having some contractors build your product is not.
    by archagon
  • Every emerging leader should listen to this podcast as an example of how someone can literally go insane with power. It’s scary to listen to.
    by cush
  • for a guy who is in the middle of it all, the opinion seems sophomoric at best. LLMs are based on heuristics and they will always make mistakes no matter how better they get. You'd need someone to 'fine-tune' the conversation with the LLM.
    by jan_m_savage
  • >"The first chip Huang worked on had 200 transistors, each of which he said he knew by name, while today’s engineers assemble systems from chips containing hundreds of trillions of them without ever working at that level. “Some of the lower-level knowledge is gone,” he acknowledged, and he later described AI as “clearly” a new abstraction level in the same progression."

    Jensen gets it!

    Related:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_(computer_programming...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_layer

    https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/11/11/the-law-of-leaky-a...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da

    by peter_d_sherman
  • They’re all backpedaling hard on all that “AI is going to replace you” hype.
    by BoggleOhYeah
  • I wonder if - there are sort of broadly speaking a few different types of learners.

    Jensen Huang has been CEO of NVIDIA for 33 years. That is a role with a very specific type of information environment. He is sort of this weird combination of specialist and - he necessarily has to operate within a certain level of abstraction.

    I’m somewhere in the middle, I’m a high achiever but not the highest. I would say I’m above average in my usage of AI at my tech job. The way I’ve learned systems thinking is by being a bit non-specific in what I learn. British history, psychology, software engineering, queuing theory, cooking.

    The idea of learning systems but not basic math - the idea of being too discerning in what I’m willing to learn. The entire idea of passing up the ability to learn something like basic math.

    So many mental models of the world are developed by engaging with things like basic math. How do you learn systems without learning patterns behind numbers?

    If the whole argument is something like it’s now about taste or creativity or being a builder? The way you learn those skills is engagement with all the things. It’s not abandoning all the things to read a book on systems thinking and product management.

    It’s not never focus, but if your default position is “maybe I shouldn’t be curious about that”. You’re operating from a deficit.

    by mikgp
  • I think this is overly optimistic; it assumes universities reacted instantly and pivoted to teaching coding with AI as soon as it was feasible. In actuality, university curriculums cannot change quickly, and AI capabilities are changing much faster. In my experience, some students are using AI to write code, but then have no idea what's going on. The "skill" of typing "Write a function to do [basic thing]" will not make them AI-native or help them in the workplace.
    by mkl
  • I listened to this podcast and it was maddening. A few of his frames :

    AI is just software, nothing new to see here.

    AI safety is primarily a sandboxing problem.

    There is no collective action problem, and every company should just slow down if they think they need to slow down.

    There is no need for regulation because the existing incentives in the market keep companies from acting badly, which is why no company has ever done anything bad.

    If something bad does happen, then we can regulate after the fact.

    We will end up creating more jobs than we destroy, so don't worry about it.

    Our kids might forget a whole bunch of stuff or never learn it in the first place. But don't worry, they'll come up with new things to learn instead.

    The only way to get safety is to move faster because then we will more quickly arrive at safety.

    Recursive self-improvement is just what we've always done.

    The real danger is alarmism that might scare the public and the young people.

    Nothing bad can happen, it can only good happen.

    by igor47

Explore Birbla archives