zlacker

>>kcorbi+(OP)
Interesting analysis. Suprised HN is so negative towards AI (and that the positive:negative ratio to AI is about the same as it was for Crypto a few years ago!)

The obvious difference is that AI has abundant use-cases, while Crypto only has tenuous ones.

Maybe there is added negativity considering it is a technology where there is clearly a potential threat to jobs on a personal level (e.g. lift operators were very negative towards automatic lifts).

>>Closi+g8
There is a lot of negativity about the way it is used I think.

Most people will agree that LLMs are pretty neat, but now instead of every startup being "like Uber but for ..." they are "like chatGPT but for ...".

Everyone is trying to chuck AI into their products and most of the time there is no need, or the product is just a thin fine-tune over an existing LLM model that adds essentially near-zero value. HN is fairly negative on that sort of thing I think (rightly so IMO)

>>mattlo+Ff
I think a major problem that is going to become more and more obvious is that AI is actually pretty expensive compared to good old deterministic computing. If there's a way to solve a problem without resorting to sending an inference request to a gpu cluster, we should do it that way. Otherwise you're wasting electricity.

>>__loam+cm
More expensive to run but cheaper to write.

Engineers are expensive, so actually the cost/benefit analysis is a little more complex and different problems will have different solutions.

>>Closi+bF
The proliferation of extremely expensive algorithms isn't necessarily good. A lot of ink has been spilled about how much useless work crypto does. We should consider the impact of AI on the total computational resources of the species carefully.