upvote
We are not in an everything-has-an-API world yet, and it'll for sure take some time to get there.
reply
I'd argue we've been in an "everything-has-an-API" world for a long time now — it's just that discoverability of said APIs is still crap.
reply
And since LLMs are apparently good at circumventing the absence of an API, there's not much incentive to add them now. APIs are for humans. LLMs just break through all the captchas and anti-bot measures.
reply
Humans do this too.
reply
For sure. Anyone who thinks that we're in the end state of what progress can be made simply lacks imagination. This is all going to keep changing and iterating for the rest of our natural lives. The only constant is change.
reply
Yes. In other words: the singularity. I'll only believe it when I see it though.
reply
I'm coming around to not liking the term singularity, it implies an endpoint or finish line rather than something that just keeps continuing and evolving.
reply
> coming around to not liking the term singularity

Bit ironic given the model’s alleged finding…

Singularities are model breakdowns. A singularity simply says our current methods cease to work in this region. Within the context of a recursively self-improving intelligence with an unknown bound, “singularity” is probably a good description of our current socioeconomic system.

reply
From the perspective of those who don't pass through the singularity to the other side, it is an endpoint. You would have no context or ability to understand a singularity transition. Really, the term is just a placeholder for "event we cannot comprehend due to limited intelligence".
reply
It doesn't imply that. The singularity is just the inflection point.
reply
Singularity and inflection point are incompatible mathematically and in the plain sense, it really is focused on a particular moment and always has been, hence the term.

And it's definitely supposed to imply some kind of historical discontinuity not a change in convexity.

reply
Which assumes the presence of an inflection point that keeps inflecting rather than revert to an S-curve. The growth model is not borne out yet to declare what shape it is.
reply
I've done a lot of thinking about this since I first used ChatGPT to write some BS jinja2 templates hours after I first play with it. I said to my friend then (who scoffed at me) that "man, this is incredible, I think we're in the foothills of the singularity! This is insane! Sure it's stupid now but I can't believe this is even possible!" That friend is so black pilled and bitter he now hates AI. Whatever, I can't fix that, but the current progress is astounding.

But thinking about the geometry of this problem helps understand why people aren't adjusting well to this. While we're walking on the curve, we look at the rate of change of the curve and say, "well, yeah, of course, dy/dx is 5 at this point and was 1 at the point a few years ago, because the curve is getting steeper" but we're always going to feel this way as things rip off into the stratosphere because dy/dx(e^x) = e^x.

From standing on the curve the curve is notably seeper, but the steepness totally makes sense to you. It's only when you look back 10 years or so that you think "wait a second, holy hell, I couldn't have imagined this!"

The first time I really (I mean really) thought about the singularity and AI was in roughly 2014. I mean, yea, I'd thought about things before that, but yeah, before the Humans need not apply video, I'd never actually given it much thought. I think back to myself 10 - 15 years or so ago, when I was just starting to tackle real programming projects, and was just starting to get decent at writing code, there is no way on earth that I would have imagined that a little over a decade later, Navier-Stokes would be solved by a computer program and the vast majority of my work would be playing sooth sayer to increasingly complicated piles of linear algebra.

reply
How do you automate the mines to get the raw materials to make the compute from, and build additional fabs that take a almost a decade to stand up. You're actually delusional.
reply
Hello good sir from the 1700s pre-industrial revolution who doesn't think that mines and factories can be automated.
reply
The factories that supply the equipment, maintain the equipment, the energy inputs, the financials of those mines are not automated.

People on hackernews are actually some of the dumbest people on the internet. This place is worse than lesswrong.

reply
The question of whether something can be automated is distinct from the question of whether it is currently automated. Things can can be automated may transition to being automated in practice in the future as technology improves and investment deepens.
reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_out_(manufacturing)

Scroll down to the existing examples section.

reply