Hacker News Reader

Comment by earthboundkid | Hacker News Reader

I am a mild LLM skeptic. But I find the response of "oh, it's all just post-crypto scamming" really weird. Crypto was a total scam. There was never a concrete, non-criminal (important caveat) application where crypto was easier than just using PayPal or whatever. LLMs are very imperfect and still have a lot of work to do, but they do actually do some job related tasks today. If I have JS snippet and I wish it were in Go or vice versa, I can ask an LLM and get a good translation. If I have a document, I can ask the LLM if there's something I should add or simplify. Are these world changing capabilities? No, not yet. But they do exist and they are real and they are new. So yes, of course investors are interested in a new technology whose future limits we don't know yet.

View on HN

The LM industry valuation would be way smaller if they were not laundering behavior that would be illegal if a human did it. If "AI" were required to practice clean-room design (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design) to avoid infringing copyright, we would laugh at the ineptitude. If people believed the FTC-CFPB-DOJ-EEOC joint statement was going to lead to successful prosecutions, the industry valuation would collapse. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/EEOC-CRT-FTC-CF...

Humans aren't required to use clean room design. Using copyrighted materials as inspiration/reference is not uncommon or illegal.

If you spend weeks drilling flash cards on copyrighted code, then produced pages of near-verbatim copies with copyright stripped, any court would find you to have violated the copyright. A lot of people right now are banking on "it's not illegal when AI does it", and part of that strategy is to make "AI" out to be something more than it is. That strategy has many parallels to cryptocurrency hyping.

'near-verbatim' is the key.

Though it'd be hard to copyright any code small enough to fit on a flash card.

If it requires changing the law to make the existence of LLMs legal, they will change the law. It’s too interesting to just ban it out right.

> Crypto was a total scam.

As someone who have been very anti-crypto for a long time, it wasn't always a complete scam.

The first wave of the crypto boom, before anyone that wasn't a programmer had even heard of it, there was a lot of real work being done that very much mirrors current AI work. Lot's of very sharp developers learning about block chain, figuring out how to implement things, experimenting with ideas. Back then everyone owned their own wallet and you would meet at coffee shops to exchange cash for BTC.

Most of the serious engineers that were really into crypto during the first crypto boom of 2012 left in disgust when the second boom came around.

Having worked in AI/ML for a long time, I myself can start to see how they felt. We do have some really cool technology in front of us, I think it has a lot of potential, but so many of the loudest voices in this space are entirely out of touch with what's possible, and far more interested in hype and making money than the underlying technology.

> There was never a concrete, non-criminal (important caveat) application where crypto was easier than just using PayPal or whatever.

That isn't true.

You can use it anywhere that irreversibility matters. Suppose you're going to commit significant resources to the customer's request, so you charge them, commit the resources, deliver the goods, and then discover that they gave you a stolen credit card and you get a chargeback. Cryptocurrency avoids that.

You can use it to accept payments from all over the world. Someone in Asia or Africa may not be able to open a US bank account or get a US credit card, but if they can find a Bitcoin ATM to put their local currency into, they can pay you, or vice versa.

It allows you to pay for something over the internet without giving your name. There are situations where this is important.

The main impediment to using it is, ironically, regulatory. The IRS decided that it's an investment and not money so every time you want to use it for what it's actually supposed to be for, they treat it like a securities transaction where you have to fill out paperwork, even if you're just buying a pack of gum. Which makes it much less convenient for ordinary people to use than cash or credit cards which don't require this -- presumably on purpose in order to destroy its utility in the US.

But it can still be useful for people in countries that don't do this, or in the US if a less explicitly antagonistic regulatory environment could be established.

Those applications are for sympathetic criminals. It’s still a crime even if the law is dumb or wrong.

Which of those things is a crime?

I apologize, because HN does tend to automatically go to crypto when discussing blockchain.

I was not talking about crypto. Blockchain “solutions” in enterprise were spinning up all over the place for non-crypto applications. In particular, in you work financial, supply chain, government or random startups, you probably heard blockchain a lot in non-crypto contexts.

I would be interested in knowing of any non-crypto use case of decentralized blockchains that has gone mainstream and is financially viable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com