[dead]
Using AI to output noise and learn nothing at breakneck speeds is worse than simply looking out the window, because you now have a false sense of security about your understanding of the material.
Relatedly, I think people get the sense that 'getting better at prompting' is purely a one-way issue of training the robot to give better outputs. But you are also training yourself to only ask the sorts of questions that it can answer well. Those questions that it will no longer occur to you to ask (not just of the robot, but of yourself) might be the most pertinent ones!
I could go either way on the future of this, but if you take the argument that we're still early days, this may not hold. They're notoriously bad at this so far.
We could still be in the PC DOS 3.X era in this timeline. Wait until we hit the Windows 3.1, or 95 equivalent. Personally, I have seen shocking improvements in the past 3 months with the latest models.
Either way, being able to generate or compress loads of text very quickly with no understanding of the contents simply is not the bottleneck of information transfer between human beings.
But for coding, the latest models are able to read my codebase for context, understand my question, and implement a solution with nuance, using existing structures and paradigms. It hasn't missed since January.
One of them even said: "As an embedded engineer, you will appreciate that ...". I had never told it that was my title, it is nowhere in my soul.md or codebase. It just inferred that I, the user, was one. Based on the arm toolchain and code.
It was a bit creepy, tbh. They can definitely infer context to some degree.
While we're speculating, here's mine: we're in the Windows 7 phase of AI.
IOW, everything from this point on might be better tech, but is going to be worse in practice.
I predict that in the next two to five years we're going to see a breakthrough in AI that doesn't involve LLMs but makes them 10x more effective at reasoning and completely eliminates the hallucination problem.
We currently have "high thinking" models that double and triple-check their own output and we call that "reasoning" but that's not really what it's doing. It's just passing its own output through itself a few times and hoping that it catches mistakes. It kind of works, but it's very slow and takes a lot more resources.
What we need instead is a reasoning model that can be called upon to perform logic-based tests on LLM output or even better, before the output is generated (if that's even possible—not sure if it is).
My guess is that it'll end up something like a "logic-trained" model instead of a "shitloads of raw data trained" model. Imagine a couple terabytes of truth statements like, "rabbits are mammals" and "mammals have mammary glands." Then, whenever the LLM wants to generate output suggesting someone put rocks on pizza, it fails the internal truth check, "rocks are not edible by humans" or even better, "rocks are not suitable as a pizza topping" which it had placed into the training data set as a result of regression testing.
Over time, such a "logic model" would grow and grow—just like a human mind—until it did a pretty good job at reasoning.
I would argue that the research needed to enable such "vector operation" is nowhere near the stage to come to fruition in the next decade. So, my prediction is, maybe, 20-50 years for this to happen, if not more.
Might not make a difference. I believe we are already at the point of negative returns - doubling context from 800k tokens to 1600k tokens loses a larger percentage of context than halving it from 800k tokens to 400k tokens.
Given time I could see this happening again.
I keep seeing this statement in threads about AI, and maybe it’s just from you, but high SNR is a good thing.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio
I think the rest of your post is very valid. It’s the mental equivalent of this article https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47049088
Two inverses do make a right, it seems.
I read that article recently, so the similarities might not be entirely coincidental. 'JPEG of thought' is gonna stay in my vocabulary for a while.
"Skill floor" is another one. People generally interpret that one as "must be at least this tall to ride", but it actually means "amount of effort that translates to result". Something that has a high skill floor (if you write "high floor of skill" it makes more sense) means that with very little input you can gain a lot of result. Whereas a low skill floor means something behaves more linearly, where very little input only gains very little result.
Even though its just the antonym, "skill ceiling" is much more intuitive in that regard.
The confusion comes from people using "skill floor" for "learning curve" instead of "effectiveness".
But this is a thing where definitions have shifted over time. Like jealousy. People use "jealousy" when they really mean "envy", but correcting someone on it will usually just get you scorn and ridicule, because like I mentioned, language is fluid.
To put it simply, think assault rifle vs sniper rifle. Anyone can use the AR and spray and pray and do pretty okay. You can't do that with the sniper rifle. So the AR has a high skill floor (minimum effectiveness) whereas the sniper rifle has a low skill floor (low minimum effectiveness). But the AR has a low skill ceiling too a point where you can put in endless amounts of skill and see no improvement in effectiveness. The sniper being an infinite range OHKO can scale to the end given aim skill and map knowledge.
Another example would be Reinhardt in Overwatch. You can tell a noob to "look in that direction and deploy shield" and they will contribute to the team. You can't put a noob on Widowmaker and have them contribute (as) significantly.
That is true, but then again also with google. You could see why some people want to go back to the "read the book" era where you didn't have google to query anything and had to make the real questions.
When AI is doing that, it loses all value as a proof of work (just as it does for a school report).
My AI writes for your AI to read is low value. But there is probably still some value in "My AI takes these notes and makes them into a concise readable doc".
i may put this into my email signature with your permission, this is a whip-smart sentence.
and it is true. i used AI to "curate information" for me when i was heads-down deep in learning mode, about sound and music.
there was enough all-important info being omitted, i soon realized i was developing a textbook case of superficial, incomplete knowledge.
i stopped using AI and did it all over again through books and learning by doing. in retrospect, i'm glad to have had that experience because it taught me something about knowledge and learning.
mostly that something boils down to RTFM. a good manual or technical book written by an expert doesn't have a lot of fluff. what exactly are you expecting the AI to do? zip the rar file? it will do something, it might look great, lossless compression it will be not.
P.S. not a prompt skill issue. i was up to date on cutting edge prompting techniques and using multiple frontier models. i was developing an app using local models and audio analysis AI-powered libraries. in other words i was up to my neck immersed in AI.
after i grokked as much as i could, given my limited math knowledge, of the underlying tech from reading the theory, i realized the skill issue invectives don't hold water. if things break exactly in the way they're expected to break as per their design, it's a little too much on the nose. even appealing to your impostor syndrome won't work.
P.P.S. it's interesting how a lot of the slogans of the AI party are weaponizing trauma triggers or appealing to character weaknesses.
"hop on the train, commit fully, or you'll be left behind" > fear of abandonment trigger
"pah, skill issue. my prompts on the other hand...i'm afraid i can't share them as this IP is making me millions of passive income as we speak (i know you won't probe further cause asking a person about their finances is impolite)" > imposter syndrome inducer par excellence, also FOMO -- thinking to yourself "how long can the gold rush last? this person is raking it in!! what am i doing? the miserable sod i am"
1. outlandish claims (Claude writes ALL the code) noone can seem to reproduce, and indeed everyone non-affiliated is having a very different experience
2. some of the darkest patterns you've seen in marketing are the key tenets of the gospel
3. it's probably a duck.
i've been 100% clear on the grift since October '25. Steve Eisman of the "Big Short" was just hopping onto the hype train back then. i thought...oh. how much analysis does this guru of analysts really make? now Steve sings of AI panic and blood in the streets.
these things really make you think, about what an economy even is. it sure doesn't seem to have a lot to do with supply and demand, products and services, and all those archaisms.
OTOH, what happens continuously is that technology is used to automate bureaucracy and even allows it to grow some complexity.
Ofcourse they don't read the reports, who has time to read it? But don't even think about not sending the report, they like to have the option of reading it if they choose to do so.
A closed door removes agency from a cat, an absent report removes agency from a manager.
That’s the solution if you’re the business owner.
That’s definitely not the solution if you’re a manager in charge of this useless activity, in fact, you should increase the amount of reports being written as much as humanly possible. The more underlings under you= more power and prestige.
This is the principal-agent problem writ large. As the comment mentioned above, also see Graeber’s Bullshit Jobs essay and book.
Indeed, productivity has decreased, because now there’s more output that is waste and you are paying to generate that excess waste.
Then everyone saves time, which they can spend producing more things which other people will not read and/or not reading the things that other people produce (using llms)?
Productivity through the roof.
Eat the Rich
Looking at job numbers that seems to be happening. A lot less employment needed, freeing up people to do other things.
Looking at job numbers
My current understanding of the general consensus is that many companies have been eating the tariffs with the hope SCOTUS will strike them. If they are upheld, prices will likely rise significantly
Wild take to cite a recession when last quarter growth was 4.4%.
Secondly, GDP is the best measure of output / value-add we have, and it's significantly up, despite jobs being down.
Output going up with fewer people means more productivity. That's the point that was being made.
Recessions are measured in economics by tracking GDP, which the person I replied to said we're in. We're not.
Whatever concept of "the economy" you had in mind to bring more nuance and refinement to a discussion, which is possible and welcome, and which you haven't bothered to add, doesn't refute the basics above.
Sadly AI is only capable of doing work that has already been done, thousands of times.
I recommend using https://catbox.moe/ which can even use remote-links so pasting the imgur link in it can also work.
It's the other way round, Imgur banned UK access so that they wouldn't have to worry about the UK's stupid, authoritarian Online "Safety" Act.
In the end when jobs are done right they seem to disappear. We notice crappy software or a poorly done HVAC system not clean carpets.
These should be handled by the government, equally for all.
Also, part of that etc is doing payroll so there’s some reason for you to show up at work every day.
This is certainly possible, but it's called communism.
That's not why companies have HR; sure, it's a nice side-effect, but it's not the reason for HR.
HR exists primarily to protect the company from the employees.
HR wouldn't tell me what would be the best and most correct course of action, the only thing that they said was that it was my responsibility as an employee to find out. Well, what did they think I was doing.
Companies don’t survive if nobody is paid to show up every day or if they keep paying every single ex employee that ever worked for the company. It’s harder to attract new employees if you don’t offer competitive salaries or benefits. HR is a tiny part of most companies, but without that work being done the company would absolutely fail.
Similarly a specific ratio of flight attendants to passengers are required by the FAA in case of an emergency. Airlines use them for other stuff but they wouldn’t have nearly as many if the job was just passing out food.
Interesting on how the very example you give for "oh this job isn't really bullshit" ultimately ends up being useless for the business itself, and exists only as a result of regulation.
No, health insurance being provided by employers, or tax withholding aren't useful things for anyone, except for the state who now offloads its costs onto private businesses.
Cattle? You actually think that about other people?
Nobody really understands a job they haven't done themselves, and "arguing" that 90% of them are "bullshit" has no other possible explanation than a combination of ignorance (you don't understand the jobs well enough to judge whether they are useful) and arrogance (you think you can make that judgement better than the 90% of people doing those jobs).
That's fine if you disagree, I'm not aiming to be the authority on bullshit jobs.
This doesn't change the fact that you and I are cattle for corpo/neo-feudals.
No. If that's the case, your statement was unclear: since you didn't specify who else thinks those people were cattle, the implication is that you think it. Especially since you prefaced your statement with "I’d argue."
And the interpretation...
> It seems more like they're implying it's those at the top think that about other people.
...beggars belief. What indication has "the top" given to show they have that kind of foresight and control? The closest is the AI-bros advocacy of UBI, which (for the record) has gone nowhere.
I was half a mind to point that out in my original comment, but didn't get around to it.
I never said it was clear? Two commenters got it right, two wrong, so it wasn’t THAT unobvious.
> What indication has "the top" given to show they have that kind of foresight and control? The closest is the AI-bros advocacy of UBI, which (for the record) has gone nowhere.
Tech bros selling “no more software engineers” to cost optimizers, dictatorships in US, Russia, China pressing with their heels on our freedoms, Europe cracking down on encryption, Dutch trying to tax unrealized (!) gains, do I really need to continue?
> Tech bros selling “no more software engineers” to cost optimizers, dictatorships in US, Russia, China pressing with their heels on our freedoms, Europe cracking down on encryption, Dutch trying to tax unrealized (!) gains, do I really need to continue?
All those things are non sequiturs, though, some directly contradicting the statement I was responding to, as you claim it should be interpreted. If "90% of modern jobs are bullshit to keep cattle occupied" that implies "the top" deliberately engineered (or at least maintains) an economy where 90% jobs are bullshit (unnecessary). But that's obviously not the case, as the priority of "the top" is to gather more money to themselves in the short to medium term, and they very frequently cut jobs to accomplish that. "Tech bros selling “no more software engineers” to cost optimizers," is a new iteration of that. If "the top" was really trying "to keep cattle occupied" they wouldn't be cutting jobs left and right.
We don't live in a command economy, there's no group of people with an incentive to create "bullshit" jobs "to keep cattle occupied."
We dont matter to them, one was or the other. They dont see us as a threat, just as bugs.
"What would you say you do here?" --Office Space
In the private market are there really so many companies delivering reports no one reads ? Why would management keep at it then ? The goal is to maximize profits. Now sure there are pockets of inefficiency even in the private sector but surely not that much - whatever the companies are doing - someone is buying it from them, otherwise they fail. That's capitalism. Yes there is perhaps 20% of employees who don't pull their weight but its not the majority.
I'm not smart enough to understand the macro-economics or incentive structures that lead to this happening, but I've seen many 100+ man teams that output whose output is something you could reasonably expect from a 5 man team.
In finance, you have to produce truly astounding amounts of regulatory reports that won't be read... until there is a crash, or a lawsuit, or an investigation etc. And then they better have been right!
Just this month the hospital in my municipality submitted an application to put in a new concrete pad for a new generator beside the old one that they, per the application, intend to retire/remove and replace with a storage shed on it's pad once the new one is operational.
Full page intro about how the hospital is saving the world, such a great thing for the community and all manner of vapid buzzword bullshit. dozens of pages of re-hashing bullshit about the environmental conditions, water flows down hill, etc, etc, (i.e. basically reiterating stuff from when they built the facility), etc, etc.
God knows how many people and hours it took to compile it (we'll ignore the labor wasted in the public sector circulating and reading it).
All for a project that 50yr ago wouldn't have required 1/100th of the labor expenditure just to be kicked off. All that labor, squandered on nothing that makes anyone any richer. No goods made. No services rendered.
You're conflating private ownership with the organizations nominal financial structure. It has nothing to do with the structure model of the organization and everything to do with resources wasted on TPS reports. This waste has to come from somewhere. Something is necessarily being forgone whether that's profit, reinvestment in the organization or competitive edge that benefits the customer (e.g. lower cost or higher quality for same cost). The same is true for a for profit company, or any other organization.
FWIW the hospital is technically nonprofit as is typical for hospitals. And I assure you, they still have all the wrong incentives despite this.
An interesting take.
Regardless of their effectivity, it means LLMs are not useful for them.
I am not sure that is true, though. Assume for a moment that Google would waste 50% of their profits. Truly, a huge inefficiency. However, would that make it likely some other corp could take their search/ad market share from them? I doubt it, given the abyss of a moat.
One could say: True, therefore search is not a reasonably functioning capitalist market.
Yeah, I know, this can turn into "no true capitalist market". Still, it seems reasonable to say that many markets work in a certain kind of way (with lots of competition), and search is not one of those markets.