←back to thread

LLM Inevitabilism

(tomrenner.com)
1657 points SwoopsFromAbove | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.219s | source
Show context
delichon ◴[] No.44567913[source]
If in 2009 you claimed that the dominance of the smartphone was inevitable, it would have been because you were using one and understood its power, not because you were reframing away our free choice for some agenda. In 2025 I don't think you can really be taking advantage of AI to do real work and still see its mass adaptation as evitable. It's coming faster and harder than any tech in history. As scary as that is we can't wish it away.
replies(17): >>44567949 #>>44567951 #>>44567961 #>>44567992 #>>44568002 #>>44568006 #>>44568029 #>>44568031 #>>44568040 #>>44568057 #>>44568062 #>>44568090 #>>44568323 #>>44568376 #>>44568565 #>>44569900 #>>44574150 #
rafaelmn ◴[] No.44568029[source]
If you claimed that AI was inevitable in the 80s and invested, or claimed people would be inevitably moving to VR 10 years ago - you would be shit out of luck. Zuck is still burning billions on it with nothing to show for it and a bad outlook. Even Apple tried it and hilariously missed the demand estimate. The only potential bailout for this tech is AR, but thats still years away from consumer market and widespread adoption, and probably will have very little to do with shit that is getting built for VR, because its a completely different experience. But I am sure some of the tech/UX will carry over.

Tesla stock has been riding on the self driving robo-taxies meme for a decade now ? How many Teslas are earning passive income while the owner is at work ?

Cherrypicking the stuff that worked in retrospect is stupid, plenty of people swore in the inevitability of some tech with billions in investment, and industry bubbles that look mistimed in hindsight.

replies(6): >>44568330 #>>44568622 #>>44568907 #>>44574172 #>>44580115 #>>44580141 #
1. munksbeer ◴[] No.44580115[source]
> Cherrypicking the stuff that worked in retrospect is stupid, plenty of people swore in the inevitability of some tech with billions in investment, and industry bubbles that look mistimed in hindsight.

But that isn't the argument. The article isn't arguing about something failing or succeeding based on merit, they seem to have already accepted strong AI has "merit" (in the utility sense). The argument is that despite the strong utility incentive, there is a case to be made that it will be overall harmful so we should be actively fighting against it, and it isn't inevitable that it should come to full fruition.

That is very different than VR. No-one was trying to raise awareness of the dangers of VR and fight against it. It just hasn't taken off because we don't really like it as much as people thought we would.

But for the strong AI case, my argument is that it is virtually inevitable. Not in any predestination sense, but purely because the incentives for first past the post are way too strong. There is no way the world is regulating this away when competitive nations exist. If the US tries, China won't, or vice versa. It's an arms race, and in that sense is inevitable.