The sweet spot is using AI to create those automation scripts, and only hooking AI up to do the high level analysis, and then have it delegate to those scripts.
> any AI system that runs on a computer that i do not control is by my definition not Open Source.
This is not true at all. It would be open source if you could download it and run it anywhere that is capable, and are free to move it and modify it as much as you want.
Just because you don't have a computer at home powerful enough doesn't mean it isn't open source.
> Open source 'winning' just means that there exists at least one open source alternative to closed models which is as good as, say, GPT 4... I mean, we're essentially there already with Google Gemma models.
Is this really true? We just don't know what the maximum capability of AI is. If it turns out AI can be as intelligent and capable as something like Data from Star Trek, no one is going to be thinking GPT 4 is good enough.
>>We just don't know what the maximum capability of AI is
For all theory purposes there is no limit. Thats what the latest loop engineering trend is about, you are asking AI to find solutions to a problem going by listing steps, and if solution not found in those steps, to treat each step as a separate problem and repeat the process until the master solution to the master problem is found.
Once a solution is found, or new data/insights are generated through this process, the LLM can be trained on this. So in theory you can just keep going like this forever.
Secondly. This is as close to agency you can build inside a machine.
Practically speaking, hardware is a limit. But that can scale up with time.
So we are already looking at some kind of runaway intelligence even if not sentient.
Yeah, the latest models are really good. For implementing leetcode-type solutions, Claude Opus is smarter than essentially all engineers I've ever worked with and smarter than me as well. The one area where I beat it hands-down is technical decision-making; it sucks at architecture, maintainability, performance and scalability.
Agency seems to correlate with the ability to make good decisions. It's kind of surprising how much agency is required to make good technical decisions. It's not even about business domain knowledge; a lot of agency is needed even in a pure tech context.
It could get really smart but I'm confident in my thesis that surplus intelligence beyond a certain level doesn't yield any real economic benefits.
At scale, I can see a benefit in terms of being able to process large amounts of data intelligently to gain a competitive advantage in terms of accruing nominal gains but I think that as long as AI is pursuing dollars, those gains won't translate to real value to the people who control the AI. At best, will translate to more political control; but with added risks and threats too. I suspect it will look more like controlled decline with a small number of entities getting an increasingly large slice of a rapidly shrinking pie.
I think AI may just figure out really complex ways to legally steal people's money. It will probably look all legit on the surface, it will look like the majority of people are just freakishly unlucky and a tiny number of elites are just extremely lucky... But it will be AI behind the scenes orchestrating seemingly random events; choosing who gets lucky and who doesn't.
Might end up literally like a game of monopoly. One player could dominate the game and start receiving all the money but, if you look at the big picture, none of the players are doing anything economically useful; just sitting around a board and moving pieces of paper amongst each other.
It's like the industrial revolution. Many kings and emperors did not like the idea of industrialization because they were already living a luxurious life and understood that it would not benefit them and would only create risks and problems for them personally. They could already afford as many human servants than they needed, what was the point of replacing them with machines to provide the same service they already received? It would give their servants more free time? To an emperor, that would have sounded more like a problem than a solution. It's a bit like that with AI. The people who control AI won't benefit from it beyond what they already have. If it doesn't serve a social cause then it serves nobody.
> I share your concerns, although we still see pretty similarly large and complex things that remain open source today.
I feel like they aren't comparable. Open source software just requires human labor, and lots of people are willing and able to share that with the world for free.
Training AI requires capital, to build and power giant datacenters. People don't donate capital at that level.
And even worse, they don't think probability is a thing. If something happens, it was certain to happen and we just failed to predict it correctly.
So when someone predicts something will happen with a 90% probability, and then the 10% chances happens and the predicted event does not happen, people will talk about what a bad prediction that was and how they were clearly wrong.
It's the same logic that causes people to say vaccines don't work because they don't stop a disease with 100% effectiveness, or that there is no point to wear a seatbelt because people still die while wearing one.
Oil changes cost like $35/year if you do it yourself. Decent tires last 4-5 years, so that's like $100/year (to be generous). Air filters are so cheap and need replacement so infrequently as to not even be worth counting.
I can only get 1-2 years out of tires, but I also drive 25K+ miles a year. (And its a heavy EV Van) Tires are $800ish a set for the affordable ones (also due to heavy van)
Cabin air filter is twice a year at $18 a filter (I replace them as soon as it smells weird)
The increased frequency of tire changes for EVs is not something I realized when I bought an EV. Those batteries are heavy, and put a lot of extra wear on the tires.
Another factor is that brake-regen is putting additional stress on two tires if it is a single motor car. So they get a lot of workout accel/regen if you aren't using your brakes as often and driving economically to regen as much power back as possible.
Plus how fun it is to get going in an EV leads to a lot of extra tire wear.
I've found that rotating my tires more often helps spread the wear out from having a single motor EV.
Ah yeah, I avoid cars/vans I can't use in normal economic ways. I need them damn tires to last as long as possible. And base model trims for less shit to fail.
Even with "expensive" electricity, and using your worst case scenario, it's still usually cheaper to charge 400 mile EV from 0-100% (another worst case scenario), than it is to fill up an equivalent gas vehicle. Even before the current gas prices spike.
But let's use your "worst case" scenario.
Worst case 300 mile EV charge (100%, during peak hours): about $50
Filling up a highly fuel efficient ICE vehicle: about $40
Of course, if you only charge the EV to 80% (as is recommended, and more efficient), and only set it to charge it off-peak (as is normal), then the numbers are much better. There are, of course, worst case scenarios, but it's actually hard to make an EV more expensive than an ICE vehicle.
I would say that to charge an EV with a 350 mile range to 300 miles would be about $25 here in California. Right now, a 300 mile range tank of gas is easily $60 or $70.
You have to lose the old mindset of a gas vehicle, ie, you "fill it up" once. EVs are much more convenient: it takes 10 seconds to plug it in when you get home and then the next day it's fully charged - and they're almost all grid pricing aware.
Like, on my BMW PHEV, if I try to fast charge during peak times, the charger actually makes me confirm i want to spend more, instead of trickle charging until 8PM.
An oil change is quick, like 30 minutes. If I grab a granola bar instead of sitting down for breakfast and then instead use that time to do the oil change, the time expenditure is basically a wash.
yep, it's dirt cheap to maintain yourself. and only a few hours per vehicle per year tbh. lots of people on hn don't know basic real life skills so this all seems insurmountable to them, and there's the ev cope that somehow your 60+ grand car is going to save you money in gas and maintenance in the long run. I have 8 cars and motorcyles for less than the cost of that one car lmao
Oil changes are cheap. A lot of places will put your tires on for free or cheaply if you buy tires from them. Assuming the car is free, the cost of car ownership is dominated by gas, insurance, and the raw cost of materials needed to maintain it. Whether you do it yourself or have someone else do it isn't going to move the needle much.
> Claude Desktop spins up a VM without no way of stopping it
I frequently make this error when I talk. My brain thinks of different ways to phrase what I want to say, but when I speak it starts with one and finishes with another. The result is almost always wrong in the way the title is, ie some variant of a double negation.
Sometimes it happens when I type, though I try to read it multiple times so often catch it.
When you realize that in some languages, for instance, in Spanish, double-negatives are not just tolerated, but correct, it helps you to let go of this particular type of pedantry when it accidentally appears in an English sentence.
This question is answered by the post? There is reportedly actually no way of stopping it happen. Perhaps the poster had a brain fart while typing it. Maybe they speak a different dialect of English from you.
Many kinds of double negative are acceptable in many English dialects, and are interpreted as emphasis. The negatives add, rather than multiply. (Though I admit I myself don't speak such a dialect, hence the equivocation.)
reply