zlacker

Two issues. First, when a human gets something 5% wrong, it's more likely to be a corner case or similar "right most of the time" scenario, whereas when AI gets something 5% wrong, it's likely to look almost right but never produce correct output. Second, when a human writes something wrong they have familiarity with the code and can more easily identify the problem and fix it, whereas fixing AI code (either via human or AI) is more likely to be fraught.

>>Curiou+(OP)
You (and everyone else) seem to be making the classic "mistake" of looking at an early version and not appreciating that things improve. Ten years ago, AI-generated art was at 50%. 2 years ago, 80%. Now it's at 95% and winning competitions.

I have no idea if the AI that's getting code 80% right today will get it 95% right in two years, but given current progress, I wouldn't bet against it. I don't think there's any fundamental reason it can't produce better code than I can, at least not at the "write a function that does X" level.

Whole systems are a way harder problem that I wouldn't even think of making guesses about.

>>edanm+W7
To be fair to those assumptions, there've been a lot of cases of machine-learning (among other tech) looking very promising, and advancing so quickly that a huge revolution seems imminent—then stalling out at a local maximum for a really long time.

>>edanm+W7
It might improve like Go AI and shock everyone by beating the world expert at everything, or it might improve like Tesla FSD which is annoyingly harder than "make creative artwork".

There's no fundamental reason it can't be the world expert at everything, but that's not a reason to assume we know how to get there from here.

>>ben_w+qC
What scares me is a death of progress situation. Maybe it cant be an expert, but it can be good enough, and now the supply pipeline of people who could be experts basically gets shut off, because to become an expert you needed to do the work and gain the experiences that are now completely owned by AI.

>>namele+t51
But it could also make it easier to train experts, by acting as a coach and teacher.

>>namele+t51
Exactly this.

The problem of a vengeful god who demands the slaughter of infidels lies not in his existence or nonexistence, but peoples' belief in such a god.

Similarly, it does not matter whether AI works or it doesn't. It's irrelevant how good it actually is. What matters is whether people "believe" in it.

AI is not a technology, it's an ideology.

Given time it will fulfil it's own prophecy as "we who believe" steer the world toward that.

That's what's changing now. It's in the air.

The ruling classes (those who own capital and industry) are looking at this. The workers are looking too. Both of them see a new world approaching, and actually everyone is worried. What is under attack is not the jobs of the current generation, but the value of human skill itself, for all generations to come. And, yes, it's the tail of a trajectory we have been on for a long time.

It isn't the only way computers can be. There is IA instead of AI. But intelligence amplification goes against the principles of capital at this stage. Our trajectory has been to make people dumber in service of profit.

>>nonran+Bj1
> What is under attack is not the jobs of the current generation, but the value of human skill itself, for all generations to come. And, yes, it's the tail of a trajectory we have been on for a long time.

Wow, yes. This is exactly what I've been thinking but you summed it up more eloquently.

>>ben_w+qC
Tesla is limited by the processing power contained in the chip of each car. That's not the case for language models; they can get arbitrarily large without much problem with latency. If Tesla could train just one huge model in a data center and deliver it by API to every car I bet self driving cars would have already been a reality.

>>nonran+Bj1
can't agree more! if anyone start to believe it, it will work in some terrible way, even there is only one algorithm in black box.

>>namele+t51
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profession_(novella)

>>nonran+Bj1
What's under attack is the notion that humans are special - that there's some kind of magic to them that is fundamentally impossible to replicate. No wonder there's a full-blown moral panic about this.

>>edanm+W7
The architecture behind the chatGPT and the other AIs that are making the news won't ever improve so it can correctly write non-trivial code. There is a fundamental reason for that.

Other architectures exist, but you can notice from the lack of people talking about them that they don't produce any output nearly as developed as the chatGPT kind. They will get there eventually, but that's not what we are seeing here.

>>marcos+V02
> The architecture behind the chatGPT and the other AIs that are making the news won't ever improve so it can correctly write non-trivial code. There is a fundamental reason for that.

What is that?

>>int_19+4W1
Agreed, but that train left the station in the late 1800s, driven by Darwin and Nietzsche. The intervening one and a half centuries haven't dislodged the "human spirit" in its secular form. We thought we'd overcome "gods". Now, out of discontent and self-loathing we're going to do what Freud warned against, and find a new external something to subjugate ourselves to. We simply refuse to shoulder the burden of being free.

>>edanm+O43
Probably because it doesn't maintain long term cohesion. Transformer models are great at producing things that look right over short distances, but as the output length increases it often becomes contradictory or nonsensical.

To get good output on larger scales we're going to need a model that is hierarchical with longer term self attention.

>>int_19+4W1
Maybe AI can replicate everything humans can do. But this technology isnt that. It just mass reads and replicates what humans have already done, but actual novel implementations seem out of its grasp. (for now) The art scene is freaking out because a lot of art is basically derivative already, but everyone pretended it was not. Coders already knew and admitted they stole all the time.

The other patterns of AI that seem to be able to arrive at novel solutions basically use a brute force approach of predicting every outcome if it has perfect information or a brute force process where it tries everything until it finds the thing that "works". Both of those seem approaches seem problematic in the "real world". (though i would find convincing the argument that the billions of people all trying things act as a de facto brute force approach in practice)

For someone to be able to do a novel implementation in a field dominated by AI might be impossible, because core foundational skills cant get developed anymore by humans for them to achieve heights that the AI hasn't reached yet. We are now stuck, things cant really get "better", we just get maybe iterative improvements on how the AI implements the already arrived at solutions.

TLDR, lets sic the AI on making a new Javascript framework and see what happens :)

>>edanm+W7
Whole systems from a single prompt are probably a ways away, but I was able to get further than I expected by asking it what classes would makeup the task I was trying to do and then having it write those classes.