It is ironic that people got laid off due to capitol allocation for compute capacity and people will get laid off when there isn't much ROI and things crash.

My view wasn't whether generative language is here to stay or not but rather will it continue to be a significant thing or not.

This is what is happening. In the rush to adopt AI many are abandoning sane engineering principles/processes lest one gets left behind. Only to rediscover them on failure, hoping it is not catastrophic.

I had a realization that everybody using AI makes things worse off for everybody because a) more of inferior things and b) they are inferior since we would be using it in areas we are not good at i.e. experts in their fields collaborating to build something versus them independently building it with an AI. Even if one assumes the best AI, it is me who when is far out of his competence that my creation is of a lesser quality. These people can still use AI and collaborate to surpass previous frontiers, but the current zeitgeist is that one doesn't need other experts now.

This led to gaming out AI adoption scenario with claude from a game theoretic approach for both an organization and an individual perspective.

The response in part 1 was expected that AI adoption is a dominant strategy.

In part 2, I asked it to reconsider the implicit assumption that adoption is beneficial. It may be good to wait if the cost of adoption is greater than the probability of benefit of adoption. The interesting part is the portfolio approach for the individual, akin to investing.

In part 3, I asked it to break down the cost model for different domains and while it pulled out the numbers out of the hat, the reasoning for software/eda seems like a correct approach but we see the opposite happening today in the industry. What I wanted to ask is what others think these would be for their respective domains.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48226484

Points: 2

# Comments: 3

What we currently have is a simulacrum of thought - albeit a good one.

Any technology is useful only in the sense that it helps us with solving the problems we are dealing with in that time. When we face issues that a pseudo-thought is not useful in tackling or worse is one of the causes - this will recede in the background.

Beyond that, the implicit assumption in the question is that thinking is the highest form of activity that is useful to us.

I don't know how my thoughts arise but thinking happens when I engage with them. I think what we look for is meaning in our lives and thinking helps us generate/achieve one, whether real or illusory.

The technology of warfare evolved to better mechanisms, perhaps same with computing.

Technologies fade away when they are no longer useful, cost/benefit ratio is too high or something better comes along.

It is question of when.

>> So they'll go to the place where they do not need to ask anyone.

>> Anyway, space has none of those problems. Indeed, the problems are almost all technical.

This is pretty naive. What happens when one of the other sovereign nation destroys your space assets or holds them hostage. There is also no defense in space.

In an alternate reality Mr Brin could still be a billionaire owner of a company not based in CA and he would still have to face this issue or he may not.

But we are here and question is why they don't think it is ok to pay these taxes. It is interesting to see their actions. There is some double think here - they want to cut ties and move out, yet want to influence the state. A sibling comment rightly said - they could be heroes by spending money that would be just a drop in the bucket for them, but instead choose to do this - still spend that money. The old adage seems true, you didn't become rich by doing that.

Now I understand one may not be happy the way the state allocates the funds - but that is a different discussion.

Maybe, the fate of Europe and that of India would have been different if he hadn't that day.

It will still pay to develop the core understanding. It is just that the world can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent :).

Even though we were aware of the insecurity of the supply chain, 1) In practice we tend to ignore it except for mission critical cases. We still do. 2) Autonomous vulnerability/exploitation at scale was difficult and reserved for high value targets.

What you said will be accelerated by 2) now.

1) One can no longer trust things out on the web. 2) One no longer needs things out on the web.

For 1), I hope the defense mechanism kicks in time to bake security into our computing culture and pervades throughout the stack.