← Back to context

Comment by efficax

4 days ago

they are definitely not agi as it was ever defined. they’re only a bit more capable than they were a year ago. they crossed over from interesting crap to useful tool recently but really only for software

You have short memory if you think we've not blown past at least 5 different AGI goalposts. They're being moved every time and we're hitting them every time.

Or maybe you just don't know exactly how capable these models are. Most people's experience of AI is a stupid chatbot, it's no wonder they don't understand how these things are coming for their jobs.

On my end, I have a software that is designed and built by Claude, that I did a strategy session on (with claude), and prepared a fundraise for (with claude). My only role, other than "knowing what to aim for", has been to feed the AI some fairly basic english prompts for a few weeks... which is also easily automatable.

Everyone's job is fucked. Devs, CEOs, everyone.

  • We’re had the ability to make coffee with a machine for decades yet you still pay $5 for a barista made Java, I think we’ll be okay.

    • Which barista? The one that uses the machine to do 90% of the work, or the one that isn't a barista and uses the machine to do 100% of the work?

      How do you know I don't have said machine at home?

      And what bug bit you to make you think this is a good comparison anyway?

      4 replies →

    • The simple fact is that economy can’t be 100% services. Who is going to pay these baristas if nobody else earns anything?

      1 reply →

  • > Everyone's job is fucked. Devs, CEOs, everyone.

    It’s curious to me that there are two distinct factions here. People like parent commenter who has no discernment and others who see llms for what they are. I just talked to opus 5 and in it’s first response caught some well disguise BS. These things are bullshit machines. There are indeed a lot of bullshit jobs around so maybe parent does discern something I don’t?

    • If you're saying I don't see LLMs for what they are, you are wrong. I have worked in the AI sector for over a decade and I know exactly how the sausage is made. As of today, I run an AI lab (ingram.tech), and we see daily not just the theoretical of what's possible, but how these systems get deployed and who's really at risk. We're head to head with the reality of the terrain.

      But it's completely irrelevant. The emergent properties of LLMs, what was built on top of those emergent properties, and the emergent properties of that, are all together building a world nobody is ready for.

      If you don't think this, you haven't seen what these things are truly capable of yet. Either that, or you have a romanticized view of what humans actually do in 99% of non-manual jobs.

      I'm blown away by how so many people on HN are just... idk, "blind" is the politically correct way to say it, I think. With zero ability to understand the transitive aspects of what they are looking at. For example, these HN threads are so often polluted with comments claiming some random use case cannot possibly be automated.

      Sometimes I feel like I'm showing somebody how a spreadsheet can calculate 1+1, and they ask "Yes, but can it do 1+2?".

  • ...chartered accountants whose job is to deal with the 100s of pages of jargon for you. LLMs are the like smartphones. They do everything so you don't need your ipod, flashlight, alarm clock, game console, computer, that handheld clicking counter thing, map, camera anymore. Llms will do that to a lot of professions.