Comment by wanderingmind
7 hours ago
Humanity has been using steel for over a millenia, however it's only in the past 100 years or so we have a good understanding of how carbon interacts with iron at an atomic level to create the strength characteristics that makes it useful. Based on this argument, we should not have used steel, until we had a complete first principles understanding.
What if you substituted "steel" with "asbestos" in your argument.
Steel has almost always (as in 99.99...% of the time) delivered to our expectations based on our understanding of it.
The cases where we built something out of steel and it failed are _massively_ outnumbered by the instances where we used it where/when suitable. If we built something in steel and it failed/someone died we stopped doing that pretty soon after.
This is partly due to having a safety factor: i.e. using twice as much steel as you think you need.
Understanding means knowing the limits of your own understanding, and building in safeguards.
Yeah but well you see, humans did not go extinct from just asbestos!
Asbestos, lead paint, cigarettes, heroin(perscribed generously for basically whatever the doc felt like), "Radithor" (patent medicine containing radium-226 and 228, marketed as a "perpetual sunshine" energy tonic and cure for over 150 diseases), bloodletting, mercury treatments for syphilis, tobacco smoke enemas (yep that was a real thing), milk-based blood transfusions.
Didn't understand those either and used the fuck out of them because "the experts" said we should.
This is why I believe we should only listen to amateur opinions on everything, experts simply lack historical credibility. For example I've recently purchased a healing crystal (half off) for only $5000 dollars! It cleared up the imbalanced energies my street guru told me about right away.
I would never have been made aware about the consequences of imbalanced energies in the first place if I had asked an expert instead. They probably wouldn't even suggest an immediate solution to the problem like my reliable street guru always does! Something to consider.
2 replies →
Smoking cigarettes didn’t really matter for as long as we were regularly burning wood for fuel. Turns out just burning pretty much anything and breathing in the particles is really bad for you. Makes sense we didn’t realize it was bad until we stopped burning logs and coal for home heating and cooking.
1 reply →
Assuming your timeline and metallurgical claims to be true, you're conflating engineering and (materials) science.
Humans have been using steel for however long, when and where it was understood to be an appropriate solution to a problem. In some sense, engineering is the development and application of that understanding. You do not need to have a molecular explanation of the interaction between carbon and iron to do effective engineering[-1] with steel.[0] Science seeks to explain how and why things are the way they are, and this can inform engineering, but it is not prerequisite.
I think that machine learning as a field has more of an understanding of how LLMs work than your parent post makes out. But I agree with the thrust of that comment because it's obvious that the reckless startups that are pushing LLMs as a solution to everything are not doing effective engineering.
[-1] "effective engineering" -- that's getting results, yes, but only with reasonable efficiency and always with safety being a fundamental consideration throughout
[0] No, I'm not saying that every instance of the use of steel has been effective/efficient/safe.
>do not need to have a molecular explanation of the interaction between carbon and iron to do effective engineering
It was more like 'we take iron from place X and it works, but iron from place Y doesn't"
This is why the invention of steel isnt really recognized before 1740. We were blind to molecular impurities
Which year did we use steel to replace human workers and automate decision-making?
Around 1928ish
The entire industrial revolution was steel replacing human workers. And that is still the backbone of the world today. We are still living the industrial revolution.
Just like the invention of fire happened ages ago, but is still a crucial part of life today.
No, it was actually engines.
The mechanism behind engines were fully understood, any experiments with engines were reproducible and measurable. You could get an engine and create schematics by reverse engireening it.
LLMs, useful as they may be, are not that.
4 replies →
Famously Andrew Carnegie spent years trying to get the steel to stop talking about goblins.
5 replies →
Poor correlation comparing physical material to computer technology
Why
Let me just quickly use absurdism to illustrate why argument by analogy is weak (and unfortunately overused on HN):
“”” Humanity has been using celibacy for over a millenia, however it's only in the past 100 years or so we have a good understanding of not having sex affects the psychology of a person, turning them into an ubermensch. Based on this argument, we should have never stopped having sex, until we had a complete first principles understanding. “””
Analogies can produce a lot of words, making it appear to be a high effort comment, but it also shifts the argument to why or why not an analogy is good or not, and away from the points the original poster was trying to make. And, by Sturgeon’s Law, most analogies are utter crap on top of being an already weak way to form an argument.
2 replies →
This is a very low-effort argument.
Humans could understand properties of steel long before they knew how Carbon interacted with Iron. Steel always behaved in a predictable, reproducible way. Empirical experiments with steel usage yielded outputs that could be documented and passed along. You could measure steel for its quality, etc.
The same cannot be said of LLMs. This is not to say they are not useful, this was never the claim of people that point at it's nondeterministic behavior and our lack of understanding of their workings to incorporate them into established processes.
Of course the hype merchants don't really care about any of this. They want to make destructive amounts of money out of it, consequences be damned.
[dead]
No.
> When some normally ductile metal alloys are cooled to relatively low temperatures, they become susceptible to brittle fracture—that is, they experience a ductile-to-brittle transition upon cooling through a critical range of temperatures.
That we did not know how steel behaved under low temperatures in building ship husks does not make it unpredictable. It was an engineering failure.
Unpredictability would be if steel behaved fine in 2 ships, cracked in 3 ships under low temperature for becoming brittle, in another ship it turned into gelatine, and in another it behaved fine but gained a pink color.
1 reply →
That's not his point at all. He advocates using LLMs.
The correct analogy is: if we just scale and improve steel enough, we'll get a flying car.
Well, we did build airplanes out of steel, but there are better (lighter) materials avaiable. But the developement of car engines did directly enabled airplane engines. Not sure if this is the right analogy path, but I kind of suspect similar with LLM's/transformers. They will be a important part.
An important stepping stone, perhaps. But I don’t think the final AGI thing will necessarily contain LLMs.
3 replies →
> Well, we did build airplanes out of steel, but there are better (lighter) materials avaiable.
That's exactly my point. In this analogy LLMs are steel, but the flying things are made out of aluminum, lithium and titanium and not steel. We need a better idea than LLMs because LLMs's are not suddenly going to turn into something they are not.
We literally did that though. Walk outside and look up.
Where did he say not to use LLMs? Oh that's right: he didn't.
pro LLM people are the kings of ad hoc fallacy. Why did you type this? You can consistently test steel and get a good idea of when and where it will break in a system without knowing its molecular structure.
LLMs are literally stochastic by nature and can't be relied on for anything critical as its impossible to determine why they fail, regardless of the deterministic tooling you build around them.
> LLMs are literally stochastic by nature and can't be relied on for anything critical
Ahh, yes, unlike humans, who are completely deterministic, and thus can be trusted.
Humans can be governed by rules with consequences and replaced with individuals with a appropriate level of risk taking / rule following for the role.
10 replies →
Wow, such a nasty view to hold. What's next, the Altman's bullshit argument about "all the food" that the humans need to grow up and develop brain ? Humans are intelligent. Humans can generalise and invent new concepts, ideas and art. LLMs are none of that.
What is the ad hoc fallacy? From googling I didn’t find any convincing definitions (definitions that demonstrate that it is a logical fallacy).
https://finmasters.com/ad-hoc-fallacy/
> Ad hoc fallacy is a fallacious rhetorical strategy in which a person presents a new explanation – that is unjustified or simply unreasonable – of why their original belief or hypothesis is correct after evidence that contradicts the previous explanation has emerged.
https://cerebralfaith.net/logical-fallacy-series-part-13-ad-...
> An argument is ad hoc if its only given in an attempt to avoid the proponent’s belief from being falsified. A person who is caught in a lie and then has to make up new lies in order to preserve the original lie is acting in an ad hoc manner.
It should be clear why the ad hoc fallacy is a fallacy.
1 reply →
Oh for crying out loud! Let's stop inventing fake analogies to justify the inherent LLM shortcomings! Those of us who are critical - are only using the standards that the LLM companies set themselves ("superintelligence", "pocket phds" bla blabla), to hold them accountable. When does the grift stop?