CEOs know (or don't care) that they won't reach superintelligence. The reason they are where they are is that they are good at saying what they need to get the next round of funding.
CEOs know that superintelligence is the only way their unbelievable investments will pay off, and they probably also know that they won't (if they don't know, they certainly don't care). But what's important is convincing investors that a mature industry (IT) is still in an exponential growth period, and they are absolutely willing to hype anything that can do this, up until the point it can't. Thus blockchain and all its applications, now generative AI.
Yes. As well as other hype-men and useful idiots. People are extremely naive when it comes to vested interest talking points. There’s a very natural reason why these guys want to keep talking about AGI and ASI: ”soon” is the magic word that makes investors feel fomo and make rash decisions.
During peak crypto madness vagueposting was an extremely effective market manipulation tool. I know people who made a lot of money on unconfirmed rumors in hours but of course it was just zero-sum gambling - the ”early adopters” made their money at the expense of the latecomers. No value was generated.
People don’t even need to be convinced that AGI/ASI is near, just ”but what if there’s a chance?”. It’s similar psychological tricks as selling lottery tickets.
Exactly this. Everyone else is doing what everyone else does. There's no direct relationship between AI adoption and layoffs, except for inflated board/CEO expectations.
I don't agree with the take. Computer abstractions should take cues from the real world that we are more familiar with, where objects have properties that we can infer in the digital world, like moving, copying, etc. This makes it easier to reason about and predict behavior.
Hyped as it is, it is important to be here to discuss its uses, misuses and implications. Some if it is fascinating, and other parts are fascinatingly bad.
I understand the fatigue with it. But that it is used right (or at all) is a conversation worth having.
It is a huge turnoff for me when futuristic series use conversational interfaces. It happened in the Expanse and was hard to watch. For anyone who likes to think, learn, and tinker with user interfaces (HCI in general), it's obviously a high-latency and noisy channel.
I actually found that quite reasonable. E.g. they were using it to sort and filter data, just like people today use llm's to write their R script and (avoid having to) figure out how to invoke gnuplot. I'm sure somewhere in that computer it's still invoking gnuplot under a century of vibe-coded moldy spaghetti code =P
I don't remember where else they used voice, they had a lot of other interface types they switched between. Tried searching for a clip and found this quote:
> The voice interface had been problematic from the start.
> The original owner was Chinese so, I turned the damn thing off.
I think the expanse nails it quite well. I really like when they move the videos from one screen to another. Or when they interact with the ship, they use all kind of outputs, voice, screens, buttons. For planning together, they talk and the machine renders, but then they have screens or even bracelets to interact.
You can't delegate understanding. I don't mean you shouldn't, you can't.
If you don't understand what's happening, you have no way to know if the system is working as intended. And understanding (and deciding) exactly how the system works is the really hard part for any sufficiently complex project.
Where's the shovelware? Why AI coding claims don't add up https://mikelovesrobots.substack.com/p/wheres-the-shovelware... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45120517