Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

57% Positive

Analyzed from 1086 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#more#technology#useful#companies#https#don#every#llms#why#places

Discussion (21 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

maxcb•about 2 hours ago
Comparing how traditional tech companies scale to how frontier AI companies scale doesn't seem very fair to me. AI is still relatively new territory, in comparison traditional software companies benefit from decades of investment in cloud infrastructure, networking, and hardware. I'm certain those technologies also went through periods of heavy investment before they became scalable.

The author also talks about advances like smartphones as though they arrived without significant challenges or trade-offs. Every major technological shift has come with some cost, e.g environmental, shortages, investments.

I'd argue most things are difficult to scale in the beginning. Just because today's LLMs are expensive and resource intensive doesn't mean the technology is fundamentally flawed, it may simply mean the current approach isn't the one we'll end up with. But naturally, someone working on another approach would have something to criticise about others.

Finally, I'm not convinced by the claim that we're "stuck" with LLMs just because they're heavily marketed. They create value for many people, which is why they've been adopted so quickly. As the author points out, investors care about economics. I'm sure people would listen if someone developed a cheaper/more sustainable technology that delivered the same value.

pixl97•about 1 hour ago
Right, if you came out with a technology that worked just as well as LLMs at half the power people/companies would jump at it from the absolutely massive savings in hardware and power. AI companies are looking at every other method they can, and inventing new ones, none of them have worked as well as the transformer so far.
watwut•about 1 hour ago
> They create value for many people, which is why they've been adopted so quickly.

A lot of that adoption is completely useless crap tho. Like ai in vacuum cleaner that ads absolutely nothing useful to anything. AI buttons intentionally at places I randomly click at, so that I am forced to open it. Google search that defaults to ai, so that we have to use it after then nerfed real search.

There are useful usages of LLMs. But huge bulk of the adoption is companies realizing they wont get investors money if they dont add ai button, it does not have to be useful.

bryanlarsen•21 minutes ago
Which happens for every new technology. Blue LED's in everything, capacitive buttons on everything, car buttons replaced with ipads, et cetera. Some of the random placements will prove out useful but most won't and will disappear.
SoftTalker•23 minutes ago
Yeah there's a huge part of it that is "the investors want tulips, so we will plant tulips"
tharmas•13 minutes ago
Thanks. You're comment made me laugh.
erelong•13 minutes ago
rglover•29 minutes ago
It is, in some ways, but no matter your opinion, AI in engineering will continue unabated.

Wrote about this recently (from a vibe coding perspective) [1]. This applies to corporations, too, as they're betting their futures on fewer engineers, more AI.

[1] https://graybearding.bearblog.dev/they-got-something-on-the-...

andy_ppp•about 2 hours ago
The ultra wealthy will out compete you for the resources you need if we don’t start taxing them has been a discussion from the left for quite some time. It seems to keep coming true in new and disastrous ways, we are going to see more and more extreme concentrations of capital and power distort things and pretty soon it won’t just be middle and poor people who cannot afford anything, the whole value chain is being redesigned around things billionaires want and what could be better for them than agents who replace all the white collar workers. You might think you’re safe from this, I don’t.

It’s worth remembering that during the industrial revolution in Britain, the fastest growing country the world had ever seen, most people were in abject poverty. This tech revolution might end up being worse.

efields•about 1 hour ago
Yup. This is a policy problem.
throwaway323929•about 1 hour ago
Instead of just rejecting the future like a Roman fatalist because you've decided that it's just going to be someone else controlling you, maybe a better plan is to adopt emerging technology when it comes into play (like for example when the Internet came into play) and use it to start your own company, or make yourself more productive, or disrupt an industry that desperately needs it.

I shouldn't have to explain the benefits of productivity improvements and computer technology to people on Hacker News, but the place for some reason has been hijacked by neo luddites from Reddit that apparently have nothing better to do than troll about AI on a web site that is literally dedicated to an industry they don't like. Sam Altman literally used to run Y Combinator. Why not use that energy you're wasting to adopt emerging technology instead of bashing it?

There are places that recognized manufacturing was going to go away, transitioned a service economy, and did well economically, and places that ignored reality and are now in disrepair. Now's a great time to decide if you want to be Seattle or Cleveland. Don't fight the future. And don't think it's a billionaires fault when certain places are more successful then others because they didn't ban AI and datacenters while other places squandered the opportunity because they didn't confront the pitchfork mob driven into a frenzy by yellow journalism.

pixl97•about 1 hour ago
"All everybody has to do is work and there will be no unemployment" --throwaway323929

Wow, you just solved economics!

Your argument is so incredibly reductive as to be nonsensical. The understanding of the allocation of capital is seemingly below grade school level. Even moreso, your understanding of the business cycle and how it interacts with governments and banks seems to be even more immature.

"manufacturing" didn't "go away", it moved to China so investors could capitalize on lax environmental laws and cheap labor. This engineered trade off of wealth had devastating results to massive parts of the US. On top of that, not every city can become Seattle. There isn't enough 'service economy' to go around and do that, especially as technology tends to concentrate wealth.

selimthegrim•36 minutes ago
This has strong shades of BoJack Horseman's "We solved America's gun problem by giving everyone guns"
andy_ppp•about 1 hour ago
I love AI and have built many projects with PyTorch and use it daily for all my work and am building a startup in my spare time here: https://veloa.com/

Being concerned about how AI will concentrate power doesn’t mean I don’t think it’s extremely useful.

watwut•about 1 hour ago
> disrupt an industry that desperately needs it.

Why is the primary tech people impulse to disrupt, destroy and harm other industries? Maybe that is why we dont produce useful tech anymore. The primary impulse is always hostile, rarely something like "lets create and sell a useful thing for them".

> adopt emerging technology when it comes into play (like for example when the Internet came into play) and use it to start your own company, or make yourself more productive,

Funny, the strategy of creating a company entirely dependent on mercy of another company, vulnerable to destruction with any simple change in TOS has been criticized on HN previously.

blinkbat•43 minutes ago
it's really funny when people advise the fix for widespread sociological problems as "just become an entrepreneur and disrupt an industry bro"
srhtftw•34 minutes ago
vanuatu•about 1 hour ago
i dont think the comparison to traditional vc saas is very good

yes, in traditional venture you want cost per marginal user to decrease and leverage your platform at scale

but improving llms shifts the frontier of their capability and unlocks entirely new use cases. so far, every mega training run has resulted in a model that has paid itself off profitably fully loaded. perhaps the TAM of intelligence has no ceiling?

not to say that we shouldnt be investing in efficient models, but the efficiency comes after we create another mega shoggoth that we can make more efficient

scotty79•36 minutes ago
I can't imagine a successful civilization where non-computing energy usage isn't a rounding error.
nancyminusone•3 minutes ago
I can. AI says it will solve all problems, like curing cancer. Suppose it does. Now there are no more problems and no reason to run the AIs, at which time computing energy will fall rapidly.

The alternative is that there will always be problems, and we could spend as much as possible trying to compute solutions, but they will not be found.