Some big gnarly problems remain (e.g. continual learning), but I think the fact of AI existing and being better than humans at cognition no longer seems like something out in the far future.

Before there were factories, if you wanted a chair you needed an artisan to make one for you. When factories pumped out chairs, there was no need for the artisan to make chairs. But building factories that made chairs was a craft in itself. If you wanted a factory to make chairs, you needed an artisan to set one up for you. A craft became redundant, but enabled another to exist.

It's natural to mourn a craft that becomes redundant. But such an event is not unique.

I do think there is something different about AI, though, in that it attacks the craft of cognition itself. At some point there's no room for a human artisan to build on top. The required faculties become too great for any human mind.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48674776

Points: 4

# Comments: 0

Chat is single threaded and ephemeral. Documents are versioned, multi-threaded, and a source of truth. Although chat is not appropriate as the source of truth, it's very effective for single-threaded discussions about documents. This is how people use requirements documents today. Each comment on a doc is a localized chat. It's an excellent interface when targeted.

Once these abstractions exist side-by-side with natural language (essentially a code-natural language world model), it'll enable arbitrarily complex code generation from descriptions of the outcomes/results.

A summary doesn't have infinite or variable depth. If you read the summary of a non-fiction (I'll limit my argument to that, as another poster pointed out) book, and either aren't convinced, or want to learn more about the matter, you'd have to purchase the book.

An LLM that has ben trained on the book, if somehow designed not to hallucinate, would be able to answer any question you have about the book at any depth, seamlessly blending in material from other books to answer a question or explain a concept. That seems like an entirely better experience than reading the book from start-to-finish. I don't see how the original can compete.

I also agree that attribution can't be solved easily in the current paradigm. Perhaps, during training, one could deduce how much of the net gradient on a particular weight was derived from the batches covering some book, and then during inference, assign attribution based on the effect of that weight on the output. All of this is very expensive to do, and I don't have strong intuitions for whether the resulting attributions would be in any way meaningful.

To your point about hallucinations, if there's not a solution to that, then perhaps the whole point is moot when, after a while, the hype dies down. But if somehow hallucinations are solved (I don't see a technical way this can happen now, but who knows?), then I think we'll need to address attribution for non-technical material.

I think this misses the point. The issue of scale isn't on the ingest side, it's on the output side. Once you train an LLM on a book (however long that takes), then the LLM can be the interface to that book for an unlimited number of users. That scales very differently to, say, a person reading a book and writing something influenced by it.

In the case of the LLM, it's a complete interface to the contents of the book. It lets you "talk to the book". If that exists, why would anyone buy the book? If I could ask ChatGPT to "summarize the new book by XYZ", then spend an hour or two asking the questions _I_ have about the book from it, then buying the book would be a net negative.

If we don't solve attribution (like BMI solved for music), then the financial upside of publishing might be majority-captured by whoever trains LLMs on the copyrighted material.

We advertise the job as on-site only, and because of that the applications self-select for those that want in-office work. It's made our interviews more focused on technical ability.

I think this is a better equilibrium overall. Those on either side of the remote/on-site preference can find the right respective jobs and work cultures.

The best tool for this right now is calendar and email. There's a lot of room for improvement.

Please PM me if you're interested in a deeper discussion. I've thought a bit about what this tool might look like and how to get it off the ground.