Hacker News Reader

Comment by dosisking | Hacker News Reader

This article is why I see LLM's as a dead end and not real AI. LLM's are somewhat useful for things related to language. LLM's are a decent search engine. But LLM's are not AI.

View on HN

How would you define AI? It seems they can do a lot of useful things. They are very good for processing language and I find Claude Code to be a better coder than a lot of human programmers.

What I mean to say is that AI encompasses a lot more than just LLM's, and that LLM's in general are a dead-end technology. People think that LLM's are going to keep getting better, but I doubt that they will, they have probably already peaked.

In general I consider neural networks to be a dead-end. But they are still considered to be under the AI umbrella.

The fact that they hired the guy who wrote the article, confirms to me that there is no substance behind LLM technology. It is a waste of time and energy.

Maybe LLM will be to AI what dial up was to the internet. It’s a start that gets things going and attracts investment for better things.

To me, AI is about the ability to solve novel problems. People who think supervised learning can do that usually believe that new knowledge comes from (1) combining old ideas, and (2) trial and error. I don't think that's true. If you think about the state space of all possible ideas, it's clear that humans can explore a very small subset of that space and supervised learning just imitates humans (with great speed and memory). RL also doesn't work, but it at least attempts to learn independently of human knowledge.

That sets the bar pretty high for intelligence and by that standard there probably aren't too many humans who have intelligence.

I think humans and other life forms have this ability on a long enough timeline through evolution.

They’re not AI. But a plural of LLM is LLMs, not LLM’s, unless you’re of course Dutch.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com