←back to thread

159 points jbredeche | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.2s | source
Show context
cuttothechase ◴[] No.45532033[source]
The fact that we now have to write cook book about cook books kind of masks the reality that there is something that could be genuinely wrong about this entire paradigm.

Why are even experts unsure about whats the right way to do something or even if its possible to do something at all, for anything non-trivial? Why so much hesitancy, if this is the panacea? If we are so sure then why not use the AI itself to come up with a proven paradigm?

replies(7): >>45532137 #>>45532153 #>>45532221 #>>45532341 #>>45533296 #>>45534567 #>>45535131 #
MrDarcy ◴[] No.45532137[source]
This is like any other new technology. We’re figuring it out.
replies(1): >>45532234 #
cuttothechase ◴[] No.45532234[source]
Mostly agree but with one big exception. The real issue seems to be that the figuring out part is happening a bit too late. A bit like burn a few hundred billion dollars [0] first ask questions later!?

[0] - https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2025-ai-index-report/econo...

replies(2): >>45532312 #>>45532582 #
baq ◴[] No.45532582[source]
The bets are placed because if this tech really keeps scaling for the next few years, only the ones who bet today will be left standing.

If the tech stops scaling, whatever we have today is still useful and in some domains revolutionary.

replies(1): >>45532864 #
cuttothechase ◴[] No.45532864[source]
Is it fair to categorize that it is a pyramid like scheme but with a twist at the top where there are a few (more than a one) genuine wins and winners?
replies(2): >>45533411 #>>45533542 #
1. ◴[] No.45533411[source]