←back to thread

AGI Is Still 30 Years Away – Ege Erdil and Tamay Besiroglu

(www.dwarkesh.com)
174 points Philpax | 8 comments | 17 Apr 25 16:42 UTC | HN request time: 1.052s | source | bottom
Show context
codingwagie ◴[17 Apr 25 17:29 UTC] No.43719845[source]▶
I just used o3 to design a distributed scheduler that scales to 1M+ sxchedules a day. It was perfect, and did better than two weeks of thought around the best way to build this.
replies(8): >>43719906 #>>43720086 #>>43720092 #>>43721143 #>>43721297 #>>43722293 #>>43723047 #>>43727685 #
csto12 ◴[17 Apr 25 17:34 UTC] No.43719906[source]▶
You just asked it to design or implement?

If o3 can design it, that means it’s using open source schedulers as reference. Did you think about opening up a few open source projects to see how they were doing things in those two weeks you were designing?

replies(2): >>43720057 #>>43720965 #
mprast ◴[17 Apr 25 17:46 UTC] No.43720057[source]▶
yeah unless you have very specific requirements I think the baseline here is not building/designing it yourself but setting up an off-the-shelf commercial or OSS solution, which I doubt would take two weeks...
replies(1): >>43720131 #
1. torginus ◴[17 Apr 25 17:51 UTC] No.43720131[source]▶
Dunno, in work we wanted to implement a task runner that we could use to periodically queue tasks through a web UI - it would then spin up resources on AWS and track the progress and archive the results.

We looked at the existing solutions, and concluded that customizing them to meet all our requirements would be a giant effort.

Meanwhile I fed the requirement doc into Claude Sonnet, and with about 3 days of prompting and debugging we had a bespoke solution that did exactly what we needed.

replies(1): >>43721006 #
2. codingwagie ◴[17 Apr 25 19:18 UTC] No.43721006[source]▶
the future is more custom software designed by ai, not less. alot of frameworks will disappear once you can build sophisticated systems yourself. people are missing this
replies(2): >>43721234 #>>43723461 #
3. rsynnott ◴[17 Apr 25 19:39 UTC] No.43721234[source]▶
That's a future with a _lot_ more bugs.
replies(2): >>43721308 #>>43721692 #
4. codingwagie ◴[17 Apr 25 19:46 UTC] No.43721308{3}[source]▶
youre assuming humans built it. also, a ton of complexity in software engineering is really due to having to fit a business domain into a string of interfaces in different libraries and technical infrastructure
replies(1): >>43721609 #
5. 9rx ◴[17 Apr 25 20:07 UTC] No.43721609{4}[source]▶
What else is going to build it? Lions?

The only real complexity in software is describing it. There is no evidence that the tools are going to ever help with that. Maybe some kind of device attached directly to the brain that can sidestep the parts that get in the way, but that is assuming some part of the brain is more efficient than it seems through the pathways we experience it through. It could also be that the brain is just fatally flawed.

6. ◴[17 Apr 25 20:13 UTC] No.43721692{3}[source]▶
7. cmsj ◴[17 Apr 25 23:44 UTC] No.43723461[source]▶
That's a future paid for by the effort of creating current frameworks, and it's a stagnant future where every "sophisticated system" is just re-hashing the last human frameworks ever created.
replies(1): >>43735440 #
8. namaria ◴[19 Apr 25 10:18 UTC] No.43735440{3}[source]▶
Bingo. LLMs are consuming data. They cannot generate new information, they can only give back what already exists or mangle it.

It is inevitable that they will degrade the total sum of information.