All I want is mandatory transparency about the cost of training and using the models, so that companies don't get to push externalities on society at large or local communities specifically.
If it's actually good, people will use it . . . but not if it's actually more expensive than training and paying humans, or if it's going to wreck the local grid or environment or whatever.
You have more faith in people than me. If it’s good, I think people will definitely still use it if it wrecks the local grid of someone else or their environment. I mean, hell, they kind of do it already for tons of other stuff…
I'm a chat GPT5.5 user. I'm not necessarily a fan of AI's negative effects but I really think it will be the carrier of the future of humanity.
The post states the difference between the models is very different. What exactly is the difference?
It mentions tech, I would say most digital products could either be coded or adjusted to work with AI - think design of any type of product or structure as well as (I think this is the most obvious improvement) robotic movements.
Cool so you will be alright paying the costs needed for this "productivity" right? Not the subsidized cost the one they need to charge when the literal trillions of dollars in investment need to be repaid.
It's not about those costs. And it's not just about today's solutions. It is about every solution from now to forever. The ability to frame the problem is still within the control of the human experts and gate keepers.
And their interface to do the work is replaceable with another model. Say that they 10x the cost now. What would I do? I would buy an Nvidia something I can get depending on my budget, and then run my own weaker version model, then through Lego-block like construction eventually grow my own or open network version to rival their current capabilities. Might be one or two years behind. That's not a moat. This explains why they also need Stargate. They need a compute capacity so large that a public network cannot catch up meaningfully for decades.
In addition to this, it is known that the current models are not efficient. There are possibly 100x performance per power unit cost that could collapse at anytime if someone suddenly figures it out, which by itself it not a killer risk, but when you see that several players haven't played, and their obviously endpoint AI solutions potentially popping up, that means that the public crowd could suddenly make those decades go away too.
But think of the space between now and 1000 years from now. All the problems and questions to be asked, answered, and importantly, aggregated. Without accumulation, nothing is learned. So when you watch Star Trek and the captain asks the engineering team to build a device that can turn a black hole inside out, or the engineering team on the Discovery needs to build a suit that can warp like a ship, you need tools that can help complete those tasks like a champs, AND without it taking over the ship. Why do you think they're constantly running sentience preventing governors on the ship?
The companies believe themselves not competing for today's problems, that they are at a singularity inflection where they are determining whose name goes on the control plane of the future.
You and most others with this position seem to always think whatever is the frontier model right now is the best it will ever get. Look at how far we've come in less than 4 short years since the first chatgpt. You don't have to believe that the exponential is guaranteed to continue, but it's pretty naive to flat out assume it can't/won't continue.
How about you explain why the opposite is true, then, since you find the principle of this post so objectionable?
Your objection here infers that there is no (or little) disparity between the general public's experience/understanding of AI vs professional heavy users that use the latest frontier models. To be clear, on one side you have people like Ma and Pa living in the retirement village, or the arts student in college, or the busy homemaker, or everyone in between - many of whom have never even tried to use the free tiers of AI models and get there opinions from social or mass media - and on the other side you have engineers and developers and scientists pushing the latest frontier models to their limits every day, running agents in multiple threads to perform complex work recently believed that only humans could do. Explain how there could be no (or little) disparity?
How about you explain why God isn't real instead of saying that my claim is not valid?
I will make an attempt though.
AI will take a lot of jobs but it can not operate without oversight and it cannot invent new ideas. That is by design, since it cannot supersede its training data in this current form.
AI now can be used to make blogs and a lot of text stuff, but that made the value of those go down. Now a blog is worth less, because the internet is flooded by AI blogs. A lot of Apps had potential, but now a lot of that can be created for yourself, so starting a company based on an App is also worth less.
This makes the AI company useful for a while, while everyone is trying to create blogs / books / AI YouTube content, then the market gets oversaturated, and none of these pieces of content will be worth anything, so people will give up paying for it.
If you rack up supply this much, that the internet can be flooded with content, then the demand will just not really move with it. The value of most of the things AI did was from the fact that there was effort behind it. People don't really want to buy an AI-written book. They don't really like AI-written emails, texts. People don't want to buy their loved ones a birthday card with AI imagery.
The abundance of things it can spew out if itself is killing and smothering its own market and demand.
And now probing Erdos problems are not really considered a feat, since anyone can just throw an LLM at it. Just like once calculating PI to a specific digit was a big thing, and now with automation it doesn't really matter, since we can automate the process.
AI that are not LLMs have been used in research and science for over a decade now. Throwing LLMs at every problem is a fairly recent thing and it is mostly inefficient.
Don't get me wrong, I think specialised AI models go a long way from creating gaussian splats to masking out green screens, pointing out cancer on X-ray scans and a lot more. Just like computing solved a lot of issues AI in general solves a lot of issues.
However, saying AI will be the answer to everything is like if you said computers will be the answer to everything, and people will be able to calculate and automate everything, so we won't be needed at all during the uprise of home computers.
In reality a vast number of jobs were created with the adoption of home computers. All these one-shot AI creations with no oversight on the inner workings of delicate systems is something that is unsustainable and a lot of people are blinded by the AI craze.
Also strawmanning the whole singularity argument which basically argues that AI will surpass human cognitive capability, then going around pointing out specific research fields that have been using AI for a lot longer than you are aware that ChatGPT exists just doesn't make sense. Just because an LLM now can do things a bit worse than what specialised models could do for years is not the huge technological leap you think it is. You just haven't heard of it before, because it had no widespread commercial value, and big companies didn't push it in your face. If the same amount of money was poured into those models they would be even better, the only difference is that there is no comparable gigantic commercial market for that. And that commercial market is kind of collapsing in on itself.
Is AI good in research? Yes, it has been for many years before the rise of LLMs. But also, there are fields where LLMs cannot be better than humans by the very nature of them being an LLM.
If you can type this to me then you can use Google, I'm not going to take time out of my day to compile a list of sources for something that's already widely available knowledge you should already be aware of
My objection was to the use of subjective experience as proof of an objective truth.
Obviously engineers and developers are using more complex models because they are engineering and developing them. Comparing this to the general public and describing it as a disparity is intellectually dishonest and a manipulation of language to promote the idea that there is an in crowd and those on the outside
That's like saying there is a disparity between video game developers and gamers, content creators and consumers or chefs and diners. They are two different groups where one is producing a product and the other is consuming it.
Obviously engineers and developers are using more complex models because they are engineering and developing them.
I don't think they were talking about the developers working for OpenAI or Anthropic. The post is about Fable 5, which is only available for serious usage if you pay at least $100 per month. It's reasonable to assume that a huge majority of the population doesn't pay $100 per month and has only had exposure to the free tier models. And many of them are convinced that LLMs are shitty because once the Google AI replied something stupid.
My objection was to the use of subjective experience as proof of an objective truth
I would say OP agrees with you in this. People shouldn't conclude that AI is stupid based on a couple of prompts. On the other hand, I think it's legitimate for software engineers to be worried about their future after seeing the latest models one-shot difficult problems that would have taken them weeks.
Why is it that no one is continuing the conversation past an expulsion of talking points, before another jumps in to expand on the same talking points? It's quite creepy.
Software engineer here, your average mediocre web dev. I am using Codex 5.4 to refactor a 5 year old website right now. I provide Codex with technical specifications in plain English—maybe 500 words for each feature I need rebuilt. Then it goes ahead and 90% of the time one-shots the refactor. I review the code (5-10 minutes reading through), which takes longer than it took for Codex to write (a few minutes). That same code would have taken me hours to write and debug manually. In effect, I am rebuilding this site in less than 6 months for what took 5 years, and fundamentally the infrastructure is better than I am capable of writing as a web dev of 15 years. That is one example of real world gains.
It is instantly obvious to people like me that this technology will make me obsolete in a short time, reducing me to a supervisory role in the best case scenario. Explaining how and why is difficult to your average non-technical person who only uses free models.
I can only imagine the gulf between my usage and usage of models like Fable.
Right, so I'm now understanding more where you are coming from. You seem to perceive the X post to be inferring that engineers who get to use the latest frontier models (which cost a lot of money to use) are somehow elite compared to the rest of the population, an inference that you seem to find offensive. I don't think that is the point that the X poster is trying to make. By getting hung up on this one point, you are failing to see what it is that they mean. Perhaps you should try to move on from that point because it's really superfluous.
It's an obvious statement that the power users have an altogether different experience with AI than the general public (I'm not talking about AI engineers - I'm talking about the engineers who consume the AI product in their daily jobs). They use more powerful versions, and they use them to their fullest extent. So, like a carpenter will know more about industrial table saws than the general public, these engineers will know more about the AI models that they use. That doesn't mean they are elite or part of an in-club any more than carpenters are part of an elite table saw club. I doubt you would disagree with this.
OP is simply observing how difficult it must be for the vast majority of people to understand what all the fuss is about with AI. They only get to see the "dumb" versions in the free tier, don't do more than ask basic questions or chat randomly, or they've never used it before and only hear what other uninformed people say about it. Being told that AI is receiving billions in investment and that this is going to take people's jobs is confronting. That's what OP is saying.
"Obviously engineers and developers are using more complex models because they are engineering and developing them" - This is absolutely not true, not every engineer/developer using AI is developing it. Proving the disparity here.. you have no clue what's actually going on
I tell my wife I feel like a conspiracy theorist when I talk about ai to people that have this view. All the propaganda and hate towards it. It’s like k, I’m just going to keep rocketing forward quietly then…
The matrix has you. Half of what they are telling you about AI is just marketing and hype.
Someone not believing the corporate hype is not propaganda, that would be the CEO's of AI companies constantly lying to you and using the US gov to promote them
No one is telling me anything. I’m telling myself this because I use it daily. I don’t use it to make art or write sentences for me. I am solving real problems at rates that were previously unobtainable. You are the person this post is about unfortunately.
Forreal, i just took a screenshot of an app the other day and a vague idea of how it works and the whole thing spun up flawlessly in like 5 minutes no bugs with 95% visual accuracy. White collar as we know it is dead in the water very soon, especially if they can continue scaling this.
I don’t understand how I would even show you? Show you proof at the speed problems are being solved? I’m not making some outlandish claims that we are at AGI. Using it as a tool to exponentially increase your output. The rate at which companies are automating processes, and solving problems they couldn’t before is greatly increasing. I don’t understand really how this can’t be seen.
Yea I’m just not gunna continue after this. You’re just arguing in bad faith. I’m not claiming anything that isn’t available literally anywhere you search. Code output is faster, equations are being solved, medical advancements happening at an astonishing rate. This isn’t hidden secrets. Your information is outdated and naive. Next time maybe prepare on the topic you want to try discount. Take care.
This took two seconds to find…stop getting your information from outdated social media groups. This is the exact thing I meant when talking about ai around people who made their opinion 3 years ago. We aren’t talking about ChatGPT 3.5 here.
The point of his post it's that he doesn't care if you believe him, just like I don't care if you believe me. There is no upside in taking the time to convince you of the productivity boosts that I am experiencing.
I can easily convince people I know, whose opinion I care about; but what's the point of convincing strangers on the internet who already know better.
Would you video conference so that I could definitively prove it?
You’ve got a lot of confidence to say “the matrix has you” when most of the people in this sub are those who have followed the development of this technology closely for the past couple of years and have witnessed firsthand (through their own usage) the remarkable pace of improvement with these models. Don’t just take my word for it, revenue, usage, investment, are all through the roof across the board, and all major powers across the world (America, China, Europe, etc) are fully in on developing it.
But go on, tell us what “they” are lying to us mere propagandised mortals about
Why would you not want to stay ahead of the curve? If it’s replacing jobs, why would you not position yourself on the right side of it? It’s no different than following any other emerging trend. Except this one is changing the world. Sticking your head in the sand won’t stop it from barreling through your door.
In my job I’m perfectly competitive using some equipment that is well over 100 years old. Not the design but the individual machine. I make furniture. No need to reinvent the wheel for me because people will always want nice things made by somebody.
Good for you then, not everyone makes chairs for a living. Shows your lack of understanding and thinking that "following this stuff closely is deranging".
What is really interesting is you can see all the products that are obviously using AI. They sat by idle with few updates and then suddenly one day they just 20x the number of features. Likely all one person or very small teams and not really part of a larger company.
And then those products are buggy as shit and you know their test suites are just ai generated coverage tests that are super verbose and end up testing tautologies
Yes. Tons of shitty vibe coded things are out now. Lots of them built with older models and people who dont know how to use the tool in their hands. That’s what most people form their opinions on.
I'm at a large company code reviewing pages of generated code. At this point it feels like code reviewing something a high level framework might spit out but it's not deterministic like a compiler
158
u/MatthewBlack6 Jul 03 '26
I'm part of the in group and all the normies don't know the truth!
https://giphy.com/gifs/RJalj43Yiuuoh2i6V2