Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46800641

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45326002

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45318536

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45227148

Points: 11

# Comments: 1

So many years later, I still haven't read a better writer (except maybe Scott Alexander). So, at least from my perspective, if anyone has the authority to write about good writing, it's this guy.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44082240

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44064803

Points: 5

# Comments: 2

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43867279

Points: 4

# Comments: 0

The way I'm getting a sense of the progress is using AI for what AI is currently good at, using my human brain to do the part AI is currently bad at, and comparing it to doing the same work without AI's help.

I feel like AI is pretty close to automating 60-80% of the work I would've had to do manually two years ago (as a full-stack web developer).

It doesn't mean that the remaining 20-40% will be automated very quickly, I'm just saying that I don't see the progress getting any slower.

For 3D models, check out blender-mcp:

https://old.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1joaowb/claude...

https://old.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1jbsn86/claude_crea...

Also this:

https://old.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1hejglg/tr...

For teaching, I'm using it to learn about tech I'm unfamiliar with every day, it's one of the things it's the most amazing at.

For the things where the tolerance for mistakes is extremely low and the things where human oversight is extremely importamt, you might be right. It won't have to be perfect (just better than an average human) for that to happen, but I'm not sure if it will.

But suppose you're right, it's 60% as good as "stackoverflow copy-pasting programmers". Isn't that a pretty insanely impressive milestone to just dismiss?

And why would it just get to this point, and then stop? Like, we can all see AIs continuously beating the benchmarks, and the progress feels very fast in terms of experience of using it as a user.

I'd need to hear a pretty compelling argument to believe that it'll suddenly stop, something more compelling than "well, it's not very good yet, therefore it won't be any better", or "Sam Altman is lying to us because incentives".

Sure, it can slow down somewhat because of the exponentially increasing compute costs, but that's assuming no more algorithmic progress, no more compute progress, and no more increases in the capital that flows into this field (I find that hard to believe).

Most western countries mostly respect individual freedom and property, taxes being an exception to that, somewhat limited and controlled. I see that as a necessary evil - something we can't fully avoid (at least, I can't figure out how we'd do that), but should try to minimize, to avoid sliding down the spectrum towards more and more evil versions of that.

I think most western countries are nice to live in because they do comparatively good job at respecting people's freedom, property, and the right to keep the stuff they earn.

Advocating for more redistribution is taking steps away from that, in the direction people don't realize they don't want to go in.

I'd be happy to live in a version of society where there's enough abundance and good will that people just give to charity, and that is enough to support everyone, and nobody is being forced to do anything they don't want.

I only dislike it when people advocate for involuntary redistribution of wealth, because it has a lot of negative side effects people aren't thinking through. Also, because I think that it's evil and results in the sort of society and culture where it would be a nightmare to live in.

What's worse (for the society), is that in this world nobody has an incentive to create wealth, because they know it'll just be taken away. When rich people aren't in power, people with political capital and big guns are. I don't think that's better.

If AGI takes over, that changes things, somewhat. If it creates unlimited abundance, then it shouldn't matter who has the most (if everyone has plenty). Yes, it would create power disparity, but the thing is, there'll always be SOMEBODY at the top of the social hierarchy, with most of the money and power - in the AGI scenario, that is someone who is in charge of AGI's actions.

Either it's AGI itself (in which case all bets are off, since it's an alien god we cannot control), or the people who have developed AGI, or the politicians who have nationalized it.

Personally, I'm uncomfortable with anyone having that much power, but if I had to pick the lesser evil - I'd prefer it to be a CEO of an AI company (who, at least, had the competence and skill to create it), instead of the AGI itself (who has no reason to care about us unless we solve alignment), or one of the political world leaders (all of whom seem actively insane and/or evil).

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43458771

Points: 4

# Comments: 0