I sincerely wonder how this is going to work given the large divergence in lifestyle preferences between these generations. Real estate especially will be an interesting one - lots of young people either cannot (due to employment situations) or actively choose not to live in the areas that their parents did. What will happen when these houses hit the market? How will this huge supply increase affect the people who do live there? Nobody I know is moving to Pennsyltucky to live in their parents' house even if it's free... will it crater property values for all of the hard-working townies who sunk their money into their own homes?
Imagine a world where mathematics is not understood by any human. Theorems and mountains of proof papers are constructed on a daily basis by automated machines at a rate far to quick for humans to understand.
These theorems DO benefit humanity but are largely unseen. You ask the LLM to make you an app. The LLM makes the app and utilizes entire languages, theories and processes made by discoveries that you as a human are not a privvy to. It all goes into the this body of knowledge only decipherable by AI.
This is the future AS long as current trendlines stay the same. As long as progress keeps going at the rate it currently is going. This is the best predictor.
Personally, and I have no evidence for this though, I think we'll hit another barrier and AI will stop making progress for about a couple decades or so. So humanity still has some time to have fun before something gets over the hump.
If you read the article it says they don’t know what genes influences autism. That means they don’t know. They established correlation but not causation. Could be the causative factor is environmental and genes simply makes a person more vulnerable to that causative factor.
I think the line of criticism around LLMs sucking at chess makes more sense when you understand what the AI companies are saying about the future trajectory of these models.
The entire recursive self improvement story falls apart once you point out that there is not much "cross domain transfer learning". Meaning that training an LLM to become good at coding, math, etc, will eventually transfer into them being good at other skills that were not explicitly trained for.
Using games like chess which have little economic value is actually a good test for this. What's even more surprising about them sucking at chess is how much information about chess strategy exists in the training data.
It is even worse.. This is a classical reinforcement problem where data generation is easy because the rule set is pre-defined. So you really don't even need any data to start with (but would help).
There are more possible game combinations than atoms in the universe, even those generation of valid game states are as you say pre-defined. that is why models cannot go this route and therefore are poor at chess
Isn’t this exactly how AlphaZero was trained? The rules are known and well defined so the training process can generate games without any outside data.
The only reason LLMs are this bad at chess is because the labs don’t care about chess performance so they’re not going out of their way to train the models for it. The ability they do have is from what chess information happens to be in the training data, plus whatever general reasoning abilities they may be able to apply.
There’s multiple databases of games in algebraic notation. You can also, very easily rl train on pitting models against one another, even without mcts.
Nah these designs can never proliferate very far because you can EASILY train AI to recognize the difference between these patterns and an actual face.
You need to make a hoodie covered with actual size faces. That will fool the AI and will be harder to account for. Use AI itself to generate these faces so every hoodie has unique faces. Then imagine everyone in a crowd wearing this.
Boom. THAT will fool AI for long time. But let's not fool ourselves... AI can eventually even be trained to recognize this. But it buys us a bit more time before the end.
Projects like this pop up multiple times per year. Mostly one off student project, sometimes famous designers. Its such low hanging fruit that wont change anything. Better start teaching politics in art school?
It will always be a cat-and-mouse game. I don't think it's possible to have any sort of visual that an algorithm can't be trained to recognize.
sidenote: did Adversarial Fashion stop selling the ALPR shirts/hoodies? That was my favorite thing to wear years back. And they're probably still effective at inserting noise.
What we need is a legislative solution to street surveillance proliferation. Germans figured that one out, rest of the world is capable of doing it too.
Gait detection can’t detect a pebble in a shoe, it just detects a different gait. Depending on which side and the location in the shoe, you could have many unique gaits. Nobody will be noticing that you have a pebble in your shoe, and if someone managed to notice that you have different gaits all the time they would probably say something like “oh there’s that guy who always shows up as someone new.” If they notice.
It would be great if a lot of people did this regularly just to throw off the data.
You need a system that does gait analysis, which requires upgrades across the board. All
those sunk costs on pervasive facial recon systems. Sucks teeth.
I guess the better question is, can this skill be learned without being an extreme expert in mathematics? Can I be a sort of intelligence highschool student (not incredibly exceptional at all) and have the LLM teach me the required math for a specific problem and guide it towards a solution?
I think the answer to this question is becoming, in general, a big yes.
LLMs can arrive at a solution via two paths. The first one is via heavy guidance by an adept expert in the domain. The other path is via brute force... multiple agents (the more the faster it can arrive at a solution). The later path is what enables anybody to do this.
HN is loaded with out of touch Kung Fu masters. They were the loudest skeptics against AI. Still a lot here.
It's human nature. If your identity is defined by your kung fu and a technology is about to obsolesce your kung fu, then all logic goes out the window as you go all out in protecting your identity. It's mostly for themselves. They have to lie to themselves and tell themselves that they still "matter".
I've been doing martial arts for more than 20 years, some in TMA, some in modern boxing/kickboxing. I have yet to meet an "out of touch Kung Fu master" in person. Nobody thinks they can clear the bar or win in a ruleset they haven't trained for. I mean I don't deny Frank Dux, George Dilman, and the DUST guy exist, nor do I support their claims. It's just that they are larger-than-life personalities to start with and I haven't met them in person.
Similarly, most of the programmers skeptical about AI---me included---don't really do so out of a threat to a domain we've mastered. The problem is, models, to this day, need supervision so they understand requirements, so they know where to properly look for prior art, so that they "understand" the existing architecture. That includes you, Claude. Our kung fu has been six months away from obsolescence since roundabouts 2022 and in 2026 they even rehired a bunch of out-of-touch kung fu masters.
>It's just that they are larger-than-life personalities
That is a very generous assessment of Frank Dux and George Dillman.
Dillman at least started off as the real deal. Dux was a total fantasist. I still find it hard to believe any bought into his 'blood sport' story, let alone made a film about it.
People who are out of touch don’t know they are out of touch. Thats why you haven’t met one. Because they all declare themselves as relevant. And this is also why you can’t recognize yourself as out of touch.
How do you recognize someone who isn’t lying to themselves? It’s hard. There’s no definitive answer but lies people tell themselves tend to be rosy and comforting. When someone tells you their own identity has been eviscrerated by AI that’s not a comforting lie. It’s more than likely a practical analysis.
It's funny that we almost agree except you have it 100% backwards.
The out of touch kung fu masters are all retired or close to it. They continue to shout about their big bet on AI as loudly as possible to protect their egos and, as a last ditch effort, whatever money they threw in.
After all, everyone who is mid-career and younger cannot possibly be a master of anything. Of course they're using AI at work, but that is an extremely far cry from the AI actually helping. They use it because it's shoved down their throats and they don't want to rock the boat. Working extra hours from home is the perfect way for everyone to save face.
In other words, the older generation is delusional. Nobody is surprised except the older generation.
I never commented on age. So we are actually in perfect agreement. Yes, older people tend to have their identities and expertises ingrained. They have more to lose in terms of identity.
I honestly feel personally attacked by this and I don't consider myself to be an out of touch kung fu master or technologist at all. It is just very odd to read such an inflammatory comment on HN and then have people pretend this is correct and perfectly socially acceptable to say.
Like put your shoes into the person you are arguing against, with some empathy, would you want to be treated this way?
You feel attacked? I’m only referring people who are out of touch and lying to themselves. If you’re not doing that then it’s not you.
Unless if you feel it’s referring to you then you’re saying what I said is true. If what I said is true, then it’s not an attack is it? I’m just spitting facts. So don’t get offended, don’t think of it as an attack.
Worse trained on humanity in the online world, which a brief comparison of the sewage section on social media is far worse than people in the real world.
reply