hdivider

Curious idea to use AI which hallucinates in order to teach students.

Because what is required to be able to know when an LLM is hallucinating? Expertise.

Meaning: exactly the one thing students don't have. By definition.

My take:

1. It shows what even this wave of AI can actually do.

2. I wish it were done by different folks, ideally under some kind of public control like NASA research or the NPR model.

3. Keep in mind: natural science is different. It's not always a matter of computation. Computer science folks often struggle with this -- but this virtual world here does not actually exist. Everything is physical, including information. Any natural science PhD or otherwise knows just how complicated nature actually is -- e.g. mention any research topic and try to encapsulate all the relevant phenomena present there. Pure mathematics is different because we define the problem, rarher than explore nature. We are in my view far away from removing humans in natural science R&D. Advancements in AI however can greatly assist us in all natural sciences, which is already beginning to happen.

Isn't it significant in some sense that this was discovered in China first, and not the US?

In the sense of: we didn't know splitting the atom would change warfare forever, back when Einstein and others published on it. We don't know if there are discoveries of similar impact lying in wait somewhere. If China gets to such a discovery first, we are in Sputnik territory, to say the least.

I think what doesn't get surfaced enough is that the cost of AI tokens is likely to decrease as new computing hardware gets scaled, such as neuromorphic (or later, photonic) computing.

To assume the current cost of Claude Code and the like is largely fixed is not likely to be accurate. The economic incentive to lower the cost of ML compute at both training and inference is very strong -- and likely even stronger once the bubble bursts.

Once the compute cost is much lower, and the systems more advanced as well, then the future of programming changes. The role of the human in this may be more like: we need one senior experienced full-stack, and like 1-3 others, to build and maintain large complex apps reliably.

The strategy for many folks will likely be to wait it out until the next administration when hopefully some amount of sanity returns.

The question buried in much of the detail: there is an indication this doesn't apply for H1B's and similar who work in the national interest or provide economic benefit (presumably substantial). Perhaps this allows an opening for at least some people.

Perhaps the people initiating this -- that is to say, almost universally either immigrants or the descendants of immigrants to the US -- would prefer something like the following version:

With silent lips. "Keep your poor, your tired, your teeming masses, too!

We’ve rewritten the laws, reframed the view,

To raise a middle finger straight at you.

Send your huddled refuse back to your own shore,

I lift my lamp beside the dead-bolted door!"

I think the main concern would be escalation, e.g. Netanyahu feeling emboldened to use his weapons too. And of course Putin, to try to shock Ukrainian forces and population (good luck).

Alliances might get reshuffled as everyone realizes they need to reassess their nuclear defense and deterrence. It would fundamentally change the nature of modern warfare, not for the better. Let us hope this never happens.

Let me articulate the thing which I believe is on many people's minds:

What is the chance the president will order a nuclear strike on Iran as this war proceeds?

We would hope the odds are vanishingly small, because doing so would be profoundly disadvantageous. But the same was true for initiating this war in the first place. The logic -- such as it is -- of some people in power may lead them to conclude once more that shock and awe can succeed. We've already struck the country with powerful conventional weapons at scale and it has not led to a weakening of Iranian resolve.

All the above said, my personal hope of course is this will never happen. I'm curious what other folks think however.

Even if clearly one side is correct without any doubt whatsoever, beyond any question? Such as 2+2=4 -- we should accept a situation where some people insist this is not true? It seems irrational.

I agree entirely. HN tends to be incredibly nitpicky and dystopian. I think it's because so many HNers work in dystopian software-only companies, not doing much in the physical world, away from the algorithms.

Incredible technological innovation is on the horizon. That's why we are not doomed this century. We can make it.

*hits 'reply', knowing there will be nitpicky comments because of course on HN these days, no positive point shall be left standing.

This is far bigger than people think.

So much advanced equipment is just sitting there in labs, waiting for humans to finally go and make experiments. Which they eventually get round to, sort of, when they can secure funding and when the grad student isn't ill or making mistakes or framing the problem the wrong way.

AI-driven labs can iterate 'good enough' hypotheses way faster than human R&D systems. Automated labs are going to be a major source of discovery.

Yes, precisely. And then as I anticipated, the "it works for me" stories, even here in this thread. Wish we could get past this steady-state in the Linux ecosystem.

Imagine a Linux distro largely displaced Windows and Mac simply due to usability, security, reliability, and the fact that there's no monstrous corporation pulling the strings. That would be awesome.

I really hope you're right. The challenge with Linux still seems to be practicalities -- like in particular, does Zoom run well on most distributions?

Reports seem to be of system crashes and degraded performance. I imagine there are lots of 'it works for me' stories, but think: for Linux to eat into Windows user market share (which I would greatly support), critical things like Zoom have to work at least as reliably as on Windows. For nontechnical users who would never figure out which incantations to type into the terminal to fix it -- because they have their next meeting in 15 minutes.

Here's a standard-structure, VC-funded, exit-oriented startup to consider: make video calls reliable. As in, you provide a guarantee and pay the customer if the call didn't work.

Wired headphones could be one part of the solution. They're just far more reliable (if they don't break, which they will). But if the reliability of video calls can be improved so that it's literally as reliable as talking to someone next to you in a quiet room, I bet lots of people would pay for it. There is so much latent frustration about unreliable calls, even with the best setup, even in NASA, in DoD, corporations, zoom and other platforms fail to perform reliably in so many cases.