upvote
deleted
reply
I saw it coming since reading Kurzweil in high school and it's still heavy.

I just had a chance to flinch first.

reply
It's not really a profound insight. Back in the 1980s when I first started writing BASIC programs I remember thinking "well, if someone invents a program that can write programs, there will be no more work for programmers"

It's easy to have that thought, and eventually you'll be correct. One thing about technology is that it only improves. It's always building on top of what already exists. The only uncertainty is the exact timing, not the ultimate outcome.

reply
This is it.

The people struggling right now - they were told. 30 years ago. They really should have come to terms with it by now.

But these are also the people who refused to believe it, for whatever reason. Their heads were in the sand. So I do feel bad for them... but... this is somewhat self inflicted.

reply
No. They might have better braced themselves for the hit, but the wound was not self-inflicted.
reply
Refusing to get out of the way of a train isn't the train's fault.
reply
Lol ...and they call AI inhuman!
reply
We've been hearing about this train for more than 30 years. Anyone who didn't see it coming had their head in the sand.

It's ok - I understand it seemed impossible. But many people understood it just fine - and they're doing fine.

reply
I knew for decades that my parents were going to die, but I still mourned the day it happened, and for a long while afterwards.

Your inability to give space for those who love math to mourn its inevitable evolution is unnecessarily cruel.

reply
Yeah, that doesn't seem comparable to me. A true comparison I think would be if you denied your parents would ever die and then your life were put in jeopardy when it happened because you didn't plan.

But we've gone back and forth about this a few times now about the same disagreement over framing.

You have a nice day.

reply
It was really quick. I stumbled across a comment from KConrad on MathOverflow on how useless AI was for research. That comment was from 2024. When it disproved the unit distance conjecture in May, the solution involved a breath of knowledge of the literature that it made sense it took a computer to make the connection. It only took 5 months for it to advance to the point that it was better than humans at almost everything. Even if you expected it, the mind boggles at how fast it was.

Also, it's impossible to really know how you're going to react to something until it happens to you. When ChatGPT came out, I already thought "in the long run they're going to automate almost everything humans love to do". Despite having 4 years to brood about it, I did not really know what it would feel like until it happened to me directly.

reply
> It was really quick.

That's how the singularity works. It's going to keep getting quicker, incomprehensibly so.

reply
I like to call it the great incoherence.

Even before LLMs it was feeling like the design of society wasn't really for people any longer, instead it's more and more designed for corporations and their convenience. In the US at least. Same with how the internet has stopped most people with socializing the same way they did in the past.

Now we have a new layer that will be optimized for these digital entities. We see it in writing all over the internet. There will be tons of other places they show up and doing things that don't make sense to us.

reply
I don't see how this is possible. There are constraints on the speed at which information can move and the number of steps required to compete a given task. The improvement cannot continue, let alone accelerate, indefinitely without bounds.
reply
OK - sure. Probably.

But it can continue to inconceivable levels before it gets to that point.

reply
Okay, how can we be certain even about that? It sounds just as plausible to me that the improvements will become asymptotic and boring, not exponential or inconceivable -- and how can we make any confident prediction at all about the heights these models will reach? The technology those heights require doesn't exist, and its existence isn't guaranteed, even if it is possible.
reply
> how can we be certain

Certain of predictions? I think that's an unreasonable ask.

And I'm comfortable with my prediction. Rather than argue about it - let's wait a year and see what happens, and then we can discuss it.

reply
> I think that's an unreasonable ask.

Oh, good point! I misread your comment. Sorry for that!

> Rather than argue about it - let's wait a year and see what happens, and then we can discuss it.

Deal!

reply
I think what makes it hard is that it's quick, but not sudden. I understand constant-rate improvement. I understand what it's like to be in a car crash. What I can't understand, emotionally, is the constant acceleration. Even now, if I look at an OpenAI solution in isolation, I can understand the big picture, so if things froze where they are I could adjust. Intellectually I know I'm not going to get that chance, but emotionally I don't.
reply