← Back to context

Comment by PeterHolzwarth

14 hours ago

I think it may be all summed up by Roy Amara's observation that "We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run."

I think this is the most-fitting one-liner right now.

The arguments going back and forth in these threads are truly a sight to behold. I don’t want to lean to any one side, but in 2025 I‘ve begun to respond to everyone who still argues that LLMs are only plagiarism machines, or are only better autocompletes, or are only good at remixing the past: Yes, correct!

And CPUs can only move zeros and ones.

This is likewise a very true statement. But look where having 0s and 1s shuffled around has brought us.

The ripple effects of a machine doing something very simple and near-meaningless, but doing it at high speed and again and again without getting tired, cannot be underestimated.

At the same time, here is Nobel Laureate Robert Solow, who famously, and at the time correctly, stated that "You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics."

It took a while, but eventually, his statement became false.

The effects might be drastically different from what you would expect though. We’ve seen this with machine learning/AI again and again that what looks probable to work doesn’t work out and unexpected things work.