LLMs just can't come up with anything they haven't seen in their training data. Try any obscure language, and they will stumble. So for them to become fluent in a new language, you will need a massive corpus of data. Not only do you need to invent a new language, but you also need to create all the sample code for it.
In fifth grade, my father got me a C64. It came with a basic programming book, in English. I read the pages using the dictionary to translate the instructions into my mother tongue.
I made an 8-bit balloon that floated on the screen. It was magical. It is still after decades.
How many pay? And out of that how many are willing to pay the amount to at least cover the inference costs (not loss leading?)
Outside the verifiable domains I think the impact is more assistance/augmentation than outright disruption (i.e. a novelty which is still nice). A little tiny bit of value sprinkled over a very large user base but each person deriving little value overall.
Even as they use it as search it is at best an incrementable improvement on what they used to do - not life changing.
Usage plunges on the weekends and during the summer, suggesting that a significant portion of users are students using ChatGPT for free or at heavily subsidized rates to do homework (i.e., extremely basic work that is extraordinarily well-represented in the training data). That usage will almost certainly never be monetizable, and it suggests nothing about the trajectory of the technology’s capability or popularity. I suspect ChatGPT, in particular, will see its usage slip considerably as the education system (hopefully) adapts.
Interesting, thank you for that. I’d be curious to see the data for 2025. I was basing my take off Google trends data - the kind of person who goes to ChatGPT by googling “chatGPT” seems to be using it less in the summer.
“Almost everyone will use it at free or effectively subsidized prices” and “It delivers utility which justifies its variable costs + fixed costs amortized over useful lifetime” are not the same thing, and its not clear how much of the use is tied to novelty such that if new and progressively more expensive to train releases at a regular cadence dropped off, usage, even at subsidized prices, would, too.
The adoption is just so weird to me. I cannot for the life of me get LLM chatbot to work for me. Every time I try I get into an argument with the stupid thing. They are still wrong constantly, and when I'm wrong they won't correct me.
I have great faith in AI in e.g. medical equipment, or otherwise as something built in, working on a single problem in the background, but the chat interface is terrible.
Claude Code with Opus models has definitely reduced our TTM. It took us some time to build processes around it. It freed our resources to focus on tasks such as crafting better user journeys and marketing plans.
One thing I am not sure about is the debt we are accumulating by allowing AI agents to write and maintain the code. In the short term, it is boosting our speed, but in the long run, we may suffer.
But the product works well, and our users are happy with the experience.
I have been a programmer for three long decades, so I have mixed feelings about this. But some days I see the writing on the wall.
The models are converging slowly. In the end, it will come down to the user experience and the "personality." I have been enjoying the new Claude Sonnet. It feels sharper than the others, even though it is not the highest-scoring one.
One thing that `exponentialists` forget is that each step also requires exponentially more energy and resources.
I have been paying for OpenAI since they started accepting payment, but to echo your comment, Claude is so good I am primarily relying on it now for LLM driven work and cancelled my OpenAI subscription. Genuine kudos to Mistral, they are a worthy competitor in the space against Goliaths. They make someone mediocre at writing code less so, so I can focus on higher value work.
And a factor for Mistral typically is it will give you less refusals and can be uncensored. So if I have to guess any task that requires creative output could be better suited for this.
I don't believe we can create something more intelligent than us. Smarter, yes, but not more intelligent. We will always have a deeper and more nuanced understanding of reality than our artificial counterparts. But it does not mean that AI can not be a danger.
> We will always have a deeper and more nuanced understanding of reality than our artificial counterparts.
Wishful thinking already disproven by collectives (Google and OpenAI) that are already better at understanding and acting upon reality than you or any single human intelligence. These are systems, and they can soon hollow out their biological components.
Do you not consider such collectives part of we (the humans)? I can understand arguing that organizations have some superinteligence. But they are still made of / run on humans - not AI/computers?
They’re currently made up of humans, but more and more will be made of computers. In their human forms, they’re still a subversion of human values, doing things as a whole, because of incentives, that the individual humans wouldn’t do. But in the future, entire corporations will get whittled down to machine processes. An AGI decision maker at the top and each individual task replaced with robot or software agent.
I agree with you. Those models are smarter than us in specific areas. But my question is, can they understand ideology, religion, etc, and feel them like we do? Can they come up with their traditions and beliefs? Because these are the core and evolving foundations of our reality and one of the most primitive activities since the dawn of humanity, I do not see any of these models even getting close to these concepts. They parrot what we told them. They have no agency of their own.
It is also a sign of hubris to think that we can create an artificial construct that is more intelligent than we are.
No, they are saying that the best option for peace is to make yourself so formidable that nobody wants to go to war with you. The point is NOT to go to war. It's just that the argument isn't disarming, it's the opposite, however counter-intuitive that might seem.
Reciprocally, it's not hard to envision how an overly-zealous military-industrial complex could promote the wrong ideas at-large. The Lavander AI's recent coverage is a good example of why you shouldn't stoke the flames of information-fetishizing warmongers.
I could see it as saying that the peace activists are on a path that will not actually lead to peace, but rather to war, and those preparing for war are on a path that will actually lead to peace.
"If you wish for peace, prepare for war" is an old way of phrasing this. It's not a new thought.
Please clarify? I don't know if war is "legitimate" but it's a fact of life even for something as innocuous as two flocks of cute parrots. Not to mention ant colonies, chimp factions etc.
This is the generous parsing of what Luckey et al were saying. The "war is illegitimate" crowd the ones they were mocking as disconnected from reality. (Albeit, in a nice way.)
It's easy to mock when it's caricaturized. And, so is the ”War is peace" position when taken to the extremes by perma-hawks, who've never seen a problem that couldn't be solved with an explosion.
As often, the solution lies in the middle. We do need strength as deterrent, but over-focus on this leads to an infinitely escalating need for more strength.
But let's be clear: war is illegitimate. That we have not found a better way to resolve conflict does not legitimize it. Killing people with whom you disagree at-scale is insane on its face.
War as policy and self-defense are two different things.
And, of course, the self-defense bit wouldn't be necessary if not for war.
Most of the push-back I've gotten on my comment that war is illegitimate is essentially some form of, "yes, but war happens". This is circular.
My point was not to deny the current reality of war or the need to reckon with it. It's that if "war is peace" is accepted as the unchallengeable law, then we will naturally have more war.
That's exactly why a country-that-shall-not-be-named does its best to frame itself as the victim, 24/7, even though it's a provable reality that they started the conflict.
Everybody knows that nobody looks favorable at aggressors but they still want land / resources / whatever so they wage an information war to make themselves look better.
I believe many nation leaders, especially those who ruled in very tumultuous times, would absolutely love it if war was not an option but alas, we have to comply with reality. We've also seen what happens to pacifists, sooner or later they get conquered.
You’ll have to form your own conclusions, but the history of the Māori tribes is often presented as an example of this. Their history is often presented as an example of pacifists vs aggressors.
No doubt. And, I've personally become more hawkish in these times. You'll see me arguing elsewhere that the West needs to be more aggressive in supporting Ukraine. I understand that we can't just lay down arms now. It's more about whether we want this to be the status quo for conflict resolution. It's just not an aspirational worldview.
So, my superficial point was that the full reasoning rests on itself. It's circular and self-serving, so it's not surprising who most often repeats it. And, if that's the footing you accept, then it will always be your footing.
The slightly deeper point was that these little memetic sayings (and the posture they support) become a self-perpetuating construction that exaggerate the effectiveness of raw might, while short-circuiting the legitimacy of other options. We see around the World effective resistance to great power.
So, it's the promotion of a kind of persistent war-footing wherein perceived military strength becomes the only lens through which all conflict is sorted. Hence, it de-emphasizes the complexity of the world and the search for solutions that can persist because they rest on more sustainable solutions beyond subjugation.
TLDR; if we emphasize peace through war above all else then we will continue to have more war than peace.
The argument I'm making is a little more nuanced than the world, and certainly HN, likes these days.
I'm not suggesting that we just declare it illegitimate and lay down our arms. I'm suggesting that the mantra, "if you want peace then prepare for war" rests on the premise that war is a legitimate way to resolve conflict. And, once you've made that decision, it becomes effectively the only way, and guarantees more war.
OTOH, if you consider that it is not, then it leaves space for prioritizing other approaches.
This does not deny the current reality of war. Think of it as aspirational.
If you think the world is better off with the US as a global policing power then one could argue that having an overwhelming force is key to sustaining peace.
So war isn't peace but being 10x stronger than everyone can be.
"The result for citizens in the US is disastrous. It mirrors the decline of the Roman Empire, which spent extravagantly on its legions, and the only growth came from conquering other peoples, looting them, and taxing them. This threat could not be sustained forever, and so the gold and silver coins were reduced in precious metal content, and the treasury (like the USA, which just prints money like a never-ending waterfall) created debased coins, resulting in inflation.
Just as the US doesn't invest in infrastructure the way other countries do or have an efficient nationalized healthcare system.
Why? We burn trillions on military and weapons. The military-industrial complex must be fed, and it is always hungry.
Think about retirement, healthcare costs, and the greedflation by corporations, as well as the government taxing your Social Security. It is intentional cruelty."
> War against enemies such ISIS is indeed leading to peace
Better example is nuclear deterrence, which has effectively ended direct great power state-on-state conflict. War is never peace. But preparing for war protects an existing one.
Yes, I spend hours in it daily. I use it primarily for work as a monitor. It is nice to have all my apps (music, YouTube, etc) accessible in a virtual workspace.
