upvote

points

by Aperocky3 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby baq3 hours ago|
next
[-]
don't confuse bayesian skepticism with plain old contrarian bias. a true bayesian updates their priors, I'd say this is an appropriate time to do so. also don't confuse what they sell with what they have internally.
reply
upvoteby Aperocky19 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
There haven't been any priors to update so far.

All LLMs got better for sure, but they are still definitively LLM and did not show any sign of having purpose. Which also made sense, because their very nature as statistical machines.

Sometimes quantity by itself lead to transformative change... but once, not twice, and that has already happened.

reply
upvoteby SubiculumCode2 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Anthropic has behaved the least like this of the AI companies.
reply
upvoteby Gigachad2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
They made a claim that 100% of code would be AI generated in a year, over a year ago.
reply
upvoteby SubiculumCode2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
That was a prediction. It was not a claim of their current capabilities. If that is the one you reach for then I feel my point has been made.
reply
upvoteby SpicyLemonZest2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
They were right, it's hit 100% at a number of large tech companies. (They missed their initial prediction of 90% 6 months ago, because the models then available publicly weren't capable enough.)
reply
upvoteby hn_acc12 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Please tell me those companies so I can find alternatives. I'm using AI every day and there's no way I would trust it do that.
reply
upvoteby SpicyLemonZest1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The transition is pretty complete at e.g. Google and Meta, IIUC. Definitely whoever builds the AI tools you're using every day isn't writing code by hand.
reply
upvoteby Gigachad55 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
I really just don't believe it. I have not met anyone in tech who writes zero code now. The idea that no one at Google writes any code is such a huge claim it requires extraordinary evidence. Which none ever gets presented.
reply
upvoteby SpicyLemonZest52 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
I'm surprised to hear that. One of us is in a bubble, and I'm genuinely not sure who. I have not met anyone in tech (including multiple people at Google) who does still write code. I've been recreationally interested in AI for a long time, which is a potential source of skew I suppose, but I do not and most people in my circles do not work on anything directly related to AI.
reply
upvoteby skejeke1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
So why aren’t they laying people off and pumping the extra money towards research efforts associated with Llm’s? Lmao.

They should all cut down their labour input right now if what you claim is true.

reply
upvoteby SpicyLemonZest58 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
At many of the best tech companies, the conventional wisdom has always been that there's a huge backlog of stuff to be done. They don't want to deliver 100% of their roadmap with 50% of their employees, they want to deliver 200% of their roadmap with 100% of their employees. (And the speedup is not as high as these numbers imply for many kinds of performance, security, or correctness-critical software.)

Some companies like Block, Oracle, and Atlassian have indeed been laying people off.

reply
upvoteby skejeke54 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Lmao man this is absolute nonsense.

Google has done nothing but destroy value with many of its ‘bets’. Your roadmap stuff is irrelevant - if you don’t have value creating projects in the pipeline and/or labour is augmented you should be laying off - period. Sundar’s job is to maximise the stock price.

So once again - nonsense. Now stop spreading crap that clearly fills people with fear. I can tell you have no understanding of corporate finance and how the management of tech firms actually think these things through.

reply
upvoteby SpicyLemonZest18 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
I'm spreading what people involved in management of tech firms have told me. Perhaps they were lying, but to me it seems consistent with what I observe in the news and in my personal capacity.

I'm also not quite sure your alternate theory is self-consistent. If Google has been frequently destroying value, and companies invariably lay people off when their projects aren't producing value, doesn't that mean they should have already been laying people off?

reply