Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

55% Positive

Analyzed from 803 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#intelligence#don#explosion#using#progress#same#happen#market#around#years

Discussion (15 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

toasty228•27 minutes ago
Pet theory: 70% of what we're busy with brings no value outside of keeping people busy/employed, which means automating it and making it 100x faster also brings no value in the end, no matter how much "intelligence" you can deploy
heathrow83829•20 minutes ago
This!

An economist might counter that any such business would loose market share. But, in actuality, a lot busineses are not competing for survival or even for market share but have it due to entrenchment. examples include: ISPs, healthcare, etc

kelseyfrog•20 minutes ago
Like advertising[1].

1. "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half." - John Wanamaker

aeternum•31 minutes ago
https://washingtoncrossingadvisors.com/wp-content/uploads/20...

It has exploded, the explosion just isn't evenly distributed. And just as it was wit the internet, most people and even most industries are not actually using it yet. Many that are are using it in name only.

People can star github repos and signup their employees for a new subscription quickly, real adoption takes far longer.

jmathai•28 minutes ago
I don't want to discount the amazing progress we've made with technology to improve people's lives.

There's the meme that the smartest people in the world are figuring out how to show ads. It's no different this time around. I understand that not everyone working on AI is building an ad network - but ultimately it feels like that's the end result.

It didn't feel quite this way 15 years ago. Back then, it felt much more tangible how technology was improving our lives. It is sort of tangible now too - I am doing things with AI that I otherwise couldn't. But somehow if feels like progress for the sake of progress.

And to be honest, it doesn't feel like the progress is for me or the people I care about.

psadri•about 1 hour ago
Even though I started using LLMs as soon as they became available, I was until recently very cautious around using them autonomously. I was of the opinion that I needed to provide heavy supervision around coding tasks. Granted, that was probably justified based on the model capabilities at the time.

However, lately, I have had several experiences that have completely changed my mind - the here is a high level goal (involving gathering production logs, setting up an eval, running tests, iterating, including diagnosis and coming up with new ideas, etc. and don’t bother me until it’s done. The experience has been incredible.

This has been possible because the agent has a way to iterate and hillclimb against a metric it can measure. Relatively easy in the world of software.

I’m now convinced that we will unlock the same gains once make other domains similarly “iterable”.

Eg Agent comes up with 100 new proteins, runs in lab autonomously, gathers results, iterates. One month (or whatever) later, you have your new protein designed.

chzblck•32 minutes ago
I am a smooth brained operator. very much the definition of vibecoding.

Last night I was able to give claude a task and they increased the classification accuracy from

81.3/89.9/92.1 to 90.9/99.3/99.6

In a little over 2 hours. In a task that up until opus 5.5 I was doing by hand/manually. and the day before was able to get the first results.

The intelligence explosion may just be user error.

bm3719•about 2 hours ago
Autonomous recursive self-improvement needs to happen. It doesn't have to happen tomorrow, or in 10 years even, but it has to happen sometime in the near future, or we're kinda screwed.

Why say this? Well, of the plausible futures from here, the worst one is where AI plateus just good enough to make us all useless (or just destroy the pipeline of a critical mass of capable humans for assisted RSI), but at a point dumb enough that we don't get human-superior AI. This might happen or not, but there's no way to predict when something that doesn't exist will, so it's one of those horrors that can keep you up at night. Some of those skeptical about RSI have likened it to the Great Filter.

cyanydeez•about 1 hour ago
The probly is believing our problems are just calculus.

They are not. Our problems are akin to cellular automata, and just the same. We can project a few steps forward but we cannot say this configuration will evolve to that configuration.

Eugenics is similar; the belief that we can measure physical chatacteristics and selectbased on the same for some desirable future configuration is just a self delusion.

Orboids in a swarm the whole does not direct the sum.

These are all basics that humans struggle against. AI will just head in adirection, and itll be as meaningless as an automata swarm. Youll recognize payterns but they wont make you sure of the next step.

Kuyawa•34 minutes ago
RSI is way closer to reality than "nanotechnological telepathy distributed as a party drug"
kooi•about 2 hours ago
Great analysis. Clearly shows "advancement" is not exponential but logarithmic. Hence, "We need to slow down!!" as a cover for stagnating improvements.
freecodeio•about 2 hours ago
Just like when you upscale a picture 100 times by 200%, and then you zoom in and start seeing all these artifacts, so is the outcome of "recursive intelligence".

We are going to be stuck in a few years of delusion, but there will be some entertainment as a side effect. AI executives and researchers are going to delve even deeper into AI psychosis thinking that the equivalent of psychedelic trip-looking school buses at 4000x zoom of an orange cat's ass, except in the form of text, is actually something intelligent and we just don't have the capacity to understand the "super intelligence's thoughts", all the while pouring another few trillions.

nifragos•about 2 hours ago
it seems that the big leap has already ended. Now its more cutting costs and improving speed. But maybe it is better this way...
kelseyfrog•about 2 hours ago
Not where, when.

Asking where is the intelligence explosion suffers the same issue as the Gorman Paradox[1] - the question proceeded the explosion by six months. Timing explosions is like timing the market - infinitely harder than predicting eventual existence.

1. https://codemanship.wordpress.com/2025/12/14/the-gorman-para...

Advertisement
inglor_cz•about 2 hours ago
I like Noah's blog in general (this is a guest post), but I think that trying to precisely time and phase a new technological development you are watching from within is a fool's errand.