oliveshell

:eyeroll:

> “Call these LLMs stupid all you want but…”

Make defensive comments in response to LLM skepticism all you want— there are still precisely zero (0) reasons to believe they’ll make a quantum leap towards human-level reasoning any time soon.

The fact that they’re much better than any previous tech is irrelevant when they’re still so obviously far from competent in so many important ways.

To allow your technological optimism to convince you to that this very simple and very big challenge is somehow trivial and that progress will inevitably continue apace is to engage in the very drollest form of kidding yoursef.

Pre-space travel, you could’ve climbed the tallest mountain on earth and have truthfully claimed that you were closer to the moon than any previous human, but that doesn’t change the fact that the best way to actually get to the moon is to climb down from the mountain and start building a rocket.

Sadly Youtube has been actively blocking Invidious instances for a while now. These days it only works for me ~50% of the time.

The fact that this comment was grey from downvotes when I found it is the most HN thing on the planet.

Thank you for this. The greed-fueled magical thinking around AI is absolutely out of control at the moment.

I made a reply about rolling my eyes to this comment that got flagged (rightly so); this was unproductive and impulsive and I admit I shouldn't have done it.

I'm not sure how HN handles replies to flagged comments, so I'm posting the following here in the hopes it'll be seen by more fellow technical people :

In the future, if you wish to invite productive comments from your audience and not curt dismissal, consider framing your concerns as potential risks rather than the cynical expressions of fatalistic certainty so often employed by naive, greedy technologists when regulation that is firmly in the public interest threatens their paychecks.

I'd've liked very much to give you one, but your blanket dismissal of what I consider to be a very important step for the field of AI ethics as the work of "Innovation Sponges" reveals that we fundamentally disagree about some pretty big underlying issues here.

In the future, if you wish to invite productive comments and not curt dismissal, consider framing your concerns as potential risks rather than the cynical expressions of fatalistic certainty so often employed by naive, greedy technologists when regulation that is firmly in the public interest threatens their paychecks.