[HN Gopher] Most AI value will come from broad automation, not f...
___________________________________________________________________
Most AI value will come from broad automation, not from R&D
Author : ydnyshhh
Score : 68 points
Date : 2025-03-22 18:35 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (epoch.ai)
(TXT) w3m dump (epoch.ai)
| techpineapple wrote:
| Does anyone else find techno-optimism really depressing? I guess
| one for the more common reason that it's displacing humanity with
| technology, but the second reason is just you can't get excited
| about a hype that is unlikely to manifest.
|
| It feels very ungrounded from tangible benefits to society.
| api wrote:
| Replacing human labor with technology is usually a wonderful
| thing if the gains are generally realized. It means less time
| spent in 'toil' and more time to pursue one's true interests
| and desires.
|
| The reason it feels depressing is that if recent history is any
| guide, 0.0001% of the human race will receive almost all the
| benefit. A tiny number of richer-than-rich will get even richer
| and everyone else will stay the same or get poorer.
| decGetAc wrote:
| Agreed,only the super rich will get cars err electricity err
| I mean refrigerators err I mean personal computers err I mean
| mobile devices
|
| To be fair I think there's a lot of truth in your statement
| in the short term (and arguably in the long). But in the
| 'long' term , it sure does look like revolutionary technology
| makes everyday peoples life better (I didn't even go into
| transportation or health care/life expectency)
| exe34 wrote:
| How will you pay for the cars err electricity err I mean
| refrigerators err I mean personal computers err I mean
| mobile devices when you have no income?
| jajko wrote:
| There will be soon new type of stuff only for rich - clean
| air, safe healthy food, beautiful nature, stable climate
| location, safe from warfare... we are not heading for a
| rosy future.
|
| Sure everybody can be addicted to some crappy social
| service on their phones, but that's not a mark of progress
| in 2025 nor definition of life fulfillment/happiness, some
| would say in contrary. Obesity was also for a long time
| mark of wealth (and in some 3rd world countries it still
| is), and now its a sign of low social status and failure
| for various reasons.
|
| Btw life expectancy i starting to decline again in
| developed countries, its just 3rd world that has so much
| gap to cross that they still go up.
| api wrote:
| When I said recent history I meant the last roughly 20
| years, when the trend has been for gains to go to a smaller
| and smaller number of people.
|
| Of course historically this does seem to be a cycle.
| Usually it goes gilded age, revolution, broad-based growth,
| emergence of a new elite, repeat cycle. Unfortunately the
| revolution period is often very chaotic and destructive.
| gruntbuggly wrote:
| Sure, we have more consumer goods available to us, but I
| don't know if that's a great measure of a better life. We
| have supercomputers in our pockets but can't talk to our
| neighbors, AI with a warming planet, etc. It's all
| tradeoffs. A flourishing human life is independent of
| technology.
| Terr_ wrote:
| Let's be careful not to conflate (A) general technological-
| progress with (B) changes in economic organization and
| wealth distribution.
|
| The nice things from (A) don't necessarily require what co-
| occurred with (B). There is nothing in the physics or
| materials of a refrigerator which requires the assembler to
| have been paid less than the CEO.
| elzbardico wrote:
| The rest (and most of us will see included on the rest
| category) will get soylent, if we are lucky.
| eikenberry wrote:
| Recent history is a poor guide that will give you a highly
| skewed view and won't really help you anticipate and plan for
| the future. You need to look at real history to get
| perspective. You don't even have to go back very far to see
| an tiny group of richer-than-rich people that didn't retain
| their power, an economic loop where this all happened before.
| kingkongjaffa wrote:
| > Recent history is a poor guide
|
| Wrong, It's the most important prior.
|
| Technology is vastly different now since your supposed
| "last time", to the point where it's an entirely different
| landscape for events to unfold.
|
| Look at the state of mass apathy and lack of accountability
| we have in society now. That tiny group has never been more
| unaccountable.
| signatoremo wrote:
| Can you be specific? Which technology only benefit the
| 0.0001%?
| gruntbuggly wrote:
| IMO that disillusionment is rooted in identifying the myth of
| progress. But I tend towards Schopenhauer over Hegel
| henry2023 wrote:
| Only when looking at this through our common understanding of
| how societies work.
|
| Broad automation of tasks can be great for society if and only
| if the product of that automation is not treated as some kind
| of private property.
|
| I'm not hyped on an automated future because I find it quite
| unlikely but if it were to happen it has the potential to be
| transforming beyond expectations.
| Swizec wrote:
| > Broad automation of tasks can be great for society if and
| only if the product of that automation is not treated as some
| kind of private property.
|
| Star Trek or Bladerunner? That's a choice we can make.
| elzbardico wrote:
| No. Most of the time WE can't make this choice. It is
| imposed on us by the elites.
| onemoresoop wrote:
| We still have a lot of power to decide what we want, the
| problem is that this power is not well leveraged yet.
| NAHWheatCracker wrote:
| Yea. Watch a sci-fi film - nifty gadgets, robots taking care of
| chores, and widespread spaceflight. Real life is some
| unreliable chat bots.
|
| Then there's the depressing practical stuff. AI being forced
| down our throats. AI as an excuse lay people off. AI as an
| excuse for massive data hoarding. AI flooding the internet,
| making it harder to find good content.
| therein wrote:
| I find it extra surprising that people are advocating for
| transitioning to using AI while their proof of concept looks
| like this:
|
| do { resp = callAI(input); } while (!isOutputSane(resp) &&
| attempts++ < MAX_RETRY)
| jajko wrote:
| Nobody sane and smart I know is advocating for AI _now_.
| All keep saying 'one day', 'soon' etc. Our megacorp very
| effectively blocked all of this and we don't have anything
| internal yet, but we are in specific market.
|
| And basically all I saw so far was a snake oil from people
| trying to push it or benefit from it, even here. Trust me
| bro... well no, show me some hard facts and we can start
| building trust. Sure assistants are nice but thats about
| it.
|
| Its just too flawed now to be dependable and reliable, it
| feels like typical 80/20 or 90/10 situation where
| inexperienced juniors are all over their head how future is
| now, and seniors just meh and go and do some work.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| > All keep saying 'one day', 'soon' etc.
|
| The parallels with crypto are amazing.
|
| > And basically all I saw so far was a snake oil from
| people trying to push it or benefit from it, even here.
| Trust me bro...
|
| Cue some dude chiming in on how they are 1000% more
| productive now and wrote 100 apps in a weekend with
| Claude, etc.
|
| It is very tiresome indeed.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Except this time is quite real for some jobs, maybe
| programming will take a few more years, but for artistic
| fields, it is already here.
|
| Indie devs now using AI generated assets instead of
| hiring artists is quite common.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| > Except this time is quite real
|
| Oh it was very real during crypto hype cycle too. The
| crypto people were very annoying with it.
|
| > Indie devs now using AI generated assets instead of
| hiring artists is quite common.
|
| I would imagine it is fine for some concept art, based on
| my experimentation with multiple models for Stable
| Diffusion.
|
| For generating actual assets that are consistent? I am
| highly skeptical. Unless we are talking about bottom of
| the barrel indie games.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Consistent enough for it to be an issue.
|
| And not only indies, when taking voice actors into
| consideration.
|
| https://www.ign.com/articles/horizon-actor-ashly-burch-
| says-...
|
| Or some well known studios,
|
| https://www.ign.com/articles/activision-finally-admits-
| it-us...
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| I was very involved in the crypto scene, and really the
| only real utility was monero for buying the funny
| chemicals.
| jgilias wrote:
| Advocate or not, it's here to stay. And if you're not
| adjusting to it, you're doing yourself a disservice.
|
| Last week I did the amount of work that would've taken me
| give or take a month. A significant part of it was
| writing an API client for a system I needed to use.
| Pretty run of the mill stuff. Doing this 'by hand' just
| takes time. Go look at the docs, type out your data
| structures, wire things up for the new call, write tests.
| With "the robot" once the framework was largely in place,
| you just paste API docs for the endpoint you need, and
| it's done in a minute. With tests and everything.
|
| Now, you could argue that this is not "senior level
| work". Sure, maybe. But the thing is, you need to use it
| to learn how to use it effectively, and more importantly
| to get the intuition about what it can help with best.
|
| So this is my thesis now - if you're a senior who
| neglects this new tool, you're going to be out of a job
| soon-ish.
| Scarblac wrote:
| But a solution that takes an OpenAPI spec and generates
| all of those things from templates would be much more
| reliably correct than letting an AI do it, and has
| already existed for years.
|
| I think AI is a game changer but not for things that can
| already be automated rigirously without AI.
| jgilias wrote:
| There was no OpenAPI spec. And it wasn't all it made
| faster to do.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Eventually only the arquitect will be required, no need
| for seniors, the offshoring team is the cloud instead of
| some folks on the other side of the planet.
|
| This is the future to prepare, not AI generating a couple
| of files.
| toogan wrote:
| > Last week I did the amount of work that would've taken
| me give or take a month. A significant part of it was
| writing an API client for a system I needed to use.
| Pretty run of the mill stuff. Doing this 'by hand' just
| takes time. Go look at the docs, type out your data
| structures, wire things up for the new call, write tests.
| With "the robot" once the framework was largely in place,
| you just paste API docs for the endpoint you need, and
| it's done in a minute. With tests and everything.
|
| That just points to an inefficiency. Could be tackled in
| other ways than involving an LLM to produce essentially
| what's being done elsewhere every day over and over
| again. A framework automating and hiding all this would
| be just as effective. Perhaps even cleaner than all that
| duplication that the LLM created for you.
|
| In other words, that month of busywork that you just
| saved is inherently unnecessary to do. But progress is
| not linear in the number of lines of code that you
| produce. If you think hard about a good architecture and
| design, coming up with that after 2 weeks of hard
| thinking, that could be 90% of the work. The remaining
| 10% are writing all that down. That could take 3 more
| months, and it taking more than 10% of the time points to
| the existing inefficiency in tooling / framework / ...
| But making that more efficient isn't necessarily achieved
| the best by using an LLM and writing it all out. There
| are still huge redundancies, which is what made the LLM
| possible. Once you boil these down in some common
| frameworks or tools, the LLM will also just produce the
| same few lines that you'd need to produce to get those
| 10% done in then just 10% of the total time.
| Scarblac wrote:
| It's actually `letSlightlyDifferentAIJudgeOutputSanity()`
| rather than `isOutputSane()`, I think.
| cratermoon wrote:
| The word you're looking for is 'dystopian'
| rqtwteye wrote:
| Technical progress would be fantastic if the benefits didn't go
| mainly to the top. I am pretty sure in the not too far future
| we will have enough technology that you can live off the land
| somewhere with the help of some robots. Or have them do all
| your housework. In principle, this is great, but our society is
| not set up for a lot of people not working while the technology
| is progressed by a relatively small number of highly qualified
| people.
|
| I am not sure where this is going but there will be some large
| changes to society needed if technology keeps progressing at
| current speed.
| sterlind wrote:
| I wanted fully-automated luxury communism, but I got fully-
| automated neo-feudalism instead. It feels bad.
| geysersam wrote:
| > I am pretty sure in the not too far future we will have
| enough technology that you can live off the land somewhere
| with the help of some robots.
|
| I don't understand, what stops you from doing that today?
| alwa wrote:
| ...and we will call it... the plow! Nay, the tractor!
|
| Limited range of inventory, though, and delivery times leave
| something to be desired... and a tremendous amount of waste
| per person, but what can you do.
| adamnemecek wrote:
| > unlikely to manifest
|
| Over what time period? 5 years? 100 years?
| techpineapple wrote:
| I think a lot of cool shit will happen in the next hundred
| years, but the "end of scarcity unlimited money/tech points
| hack" is unlikely to happen in the next 100 years.
|
| And this is the core of my argument, let's talk more about
| the cool shit.
| ajb wrote:
| Yeah
|
| The historic benefits of technology come from eliminating the
| waste of human effort:
|
| - Motors and engines removed the waste of using our muscles as
| an energy source
|
| - Computers removed the waste of people's time doing
| calculations and admin manually
|
| - Electronic Communications removed the waste of carrying
| information in physical form
|
| What's the most prevalent form of waste today? I think it's
| dishonesty and corruption. And AI seems set to make more of it.
| beau_g wrote:
| I personally think it's polarized, and either the Pentti
| Linkola/Ted K way of thinking that the industrial revolution
| (or maybe even the agricultural revolution) were a detriment to
| humanity is correct and there is no turning it around within
| that framework, or all tech progress will reach an ultimately
| good equilibrium, though will be unstable and have mistakes
| along the way. I definitely lean towards the latter. What I do
| not think at all is we should purposely delay tech progress
| through the use of violence (which is what laws/regulations
| effectively are) while doing some type of wait and think about
| it exercise. I definitely don't think anything (good or bad)
| that does not break the laws of physics is unlikely to
| manifest, quite the opposite, most things we imagine now will
| come to fruition in our lifetimes and many others we haven't
| even imagined yet both good and bad.
| yarekt wrote:
| Regulation is violence? sorry for putting my socialist hat
| on, but free market is efficient, so efficient that without
| regulation it'll optimise away human happiness and find a way
| to turn tears into profits. Regulation is basically saying
| that you can make money in ways that benefits the humanity
| also, at least in theory. Lobbying and corrupt regulators
| muddy the waters
| beau_g wrote:
| Of course, laws/regulations are enforced by the party in a
| country that has a monopoly on violence, and use the threat
| of violence to enforce (either imprisonment or a monetary
| fine, monetary fines are a derivative of kidnapping as
| money takes time to accumulate). Of course I'm not arguing
| against these functions in general, they should be used in
| ways that prevent an even worse act of violence (ex. a
| corporation wasting the time and money of millions of
| people by selling them a dangerous product). The
| application layer is where I believe laws and regulations
| are appropriate though, not preventing the development of
| the technology (ex. trying to limit who, how, and when
| someone/some company can do a large training run for an AI
| video model, because AI video models will be leveraged by
| scammers down the line).
| toogan wrote:
| Threat of violence is not violence.
|
| A policeman standing on a public square threatening to
| incarcerate anybody who is violent results in no violence
| actually happening at that square. Take away that
| regulation (in form of the policeman) and watch the
| actual violence start.
| diordiderot wrote:
| Feels like early industrial revolution vibes. Some of the hype
| turned real, just not how and a lot later than anyone expected.
| Same thing happened in the post-atomic age. But the gaps
| between revolutions are getting shorter.
| pjmlp wrote:
| I am as optimistic as a factory worker about to replaced by
| robots.
|
| Hence why I can't stand such techno-optmism, apparently most
| folks live in an ideal world free of economics.
| toogan wrote:
| Has the last 70 years of productivity increases led to a
| reduction in weekly work hours? No.
|
| Some jobs will be automated away. Good thing. Braindead stuff
| that a machine can do should be done by a machine. Doesn't
| mean we'll all soon be just picking our noses. There will be
| other work to be done, and if unregulated capitalism has its
| say then it can easily lead to even more worker exploitation.
| pseudocomposer wrote:
| My last two roles have involved automating detection of cancers
| and other disease in biopsies (eliminating pathologists' jobs
| in hospitals), and now automating invoice payment and statement
| settlement in the global freight sector (eliminating
| accountants'/operators' jobs in these companies).
|
| I'm honestly very excited about this type of work. The benefits
| to society - better healthcare for less money, humans with
| their beautiful, creative brains not spending 40 hours a week
| looking at documents unnecessarily - are incredibly obvious.
| The flipside of this progress is, of course, that we have to
| overthrow the extractive capitalist system we have in place.
| We're able to do this work in spite of that wasteful,
| inefficient system, not because of it.
|
| I think the only thing that will actually push people to
| overthrow it is exactly the type of work I'm doing. Much like
| the first industrial revolution begat our first efforts at
| creating a more socialist, just, and democratic society (eg,
| like Fiorello La Guardia for instance). The benefits to this
| the first time were extremely tangible.
| 857593936464 wrote:
| > humans with their beautiful, creative brains not spending
| 40 hours a week looking at documents unnecessarily
|
| What should they be doing once all the meaningful jobs are
| automated away?
|
| > The flipside of this progress is, of course, that we have
| to overthrow the extractive capitalist system we have in
| place.
|
| > I think the only thing that will actually push people to
| overthrow it is exactly the type of work I'm doing.
|
| Stripping people of their livelihoods is one way to encourage
| them to overthrow the system, yes. Make no mistake though:
| the revolution will not be kind to you.
| worldsayshi wrote:
| We should also be displacing hierarchies. Why does it only
| benefit the very few? Because they get to somehow keep their
| moats. So how can we displace those moats?
| geysersam wrote:
| > So how can we displace those moats?
|
| Abolish private property I guess?
| ohgr wrote:
| The depressing bit is it's a corporate dystopia where you are a
| constant cash cow driven on hype and hope that never
| materialises.
|
| Like fuck me someone was trying to sell my company an AI todo
| list the other day. What problem does it even solve?!?!?
|
| Go out, buy a new iPhone. AI will come tomorrow and tell you
| when your mother gets to the airport and add it to your
| calendar and hire you a robotaxi to shovel your obsolete meat
| corpse into the worker ant distribution hub to escort her back
| to your techno-panopticon.
| 4b11b4 wrote:
| I've recently been stuck on the idea that speculation is akin
| to computation... the moment we depart from the reality before
| us.
| SequoiaHope wrote:
| Well: though we are not particularly likely to I do think that
| replacing people with machines would be fantastic if we
| actually just let people relax and work less, and so rather
| than lament the state of things I tend to focus on the need to
| promote the value of social systems which support human
| thriving. On the second point, I guess I would say that most of
| the marketing talk we see is unlikely to manifest but the
| future will in fact bring fantastic and fanciful advances in
| technology - it just won't be what the marketers are trying to
| tell us.
| dogcomplex wrote:
| We've had a long history of technological improvements being
| widespread distributed to the people. There's not a
| particularly bleak reason to believe the latest AI automation
| won't be too. Look around your desk or your house and just
| count all the effort-saving devices that have made their way
| down to you. Look at the price of TVs cratering. Tech that can
| be recreated easily spreads far and wide. AI can too. It's
| dropped 1000x in costs the last 2 years. This stuff will be
| running on old tech everywhere - and speedier and cheaper new
| chips, bots and other hardware are on their way.
|
| Unless there's a new world war or draconian regulation, we're
| good. It's pretty much locked in.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| This is exactly correct technically and perfectly on the existing
| "paved path" of technology determinism.
|
| My company is actively in the process of demonstrating the
| "Learning machine" which is a Weiner style cybernetic system of
| systems
|
| It's unquestionable at this point that machines will displace all
| human labor where labor efficiency is the key factor for
| investment/use. Start with transfer learning from existing human
| machine interfaces and then expand to onpolicy with human
| feedback to SARSA.
|
| The only remaining question is the persistent one "who benefits"
|
| Almost nobody is working on what to do after
| zurfer wrote:
| I think plenty of people are working on that, some unaware :P
|
| Games for status will continue.
|
| Consuming experiences will continue (experiences that require
| humans will be premium).
|
| And in a good case, we will still have plenty of work to do to
| decide what to do (going to space, making earth sustainable,
| merging with machines, ...).
| gom_jabbar wrote:
| > Almost nobody is working on what to do after
|
| One interesting possibility is that this is not something
| humans need to work on at all - because, as Nick Land famously
| put it, "Tomorrow can take care of itself." [0]
|
| [0] https://retrochronic.com/#meltdown
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| Why's he write like if I tried to mimick anti-oedipus
| getnormality wrote:
| This article lost all credibility with me here:
|
| > ...this means that only 20% of labor productivity growth in the
| US since 1988 has been driven by R&D spending! Capital deepening
| accounts for around half of labor productivity growth in this
| period...
|
| This is like saying that Jeff Dean's net worth is attributable
| not to his programming skills, but to the capital deepening of
| his bank account. The authors are working with concepts at a
| level of abstraction where they've lost contact with what they're
| saying.
| __loam wrote:
| Bizarre way to describe capital deepening. Jeff's programming
| skills probably got a lot more relevant because of things like
| the proliferation of internet access and utility computing.
| Seems like a pretty simple statement to me but maybe that's too
| abstract for you.
| tbrownaw wrote:
| You know how office workers are more productive because of
| computers? This didn't just happen because various companies
| did R&D investments in building (better) computers, but also
| because companies actually spent money buying computers for
| their office workers and because those office workers spent
| time learning how to use computers.
| getnormality wrote:
| If A caused B caused C, how does one determine the relative
| contributions of A and B to C? It makes no sense.
| mooreds wrote:
| If you haven't read this classic about technology deployment from
| 2015, it's worth a read.
|
| https://reactionwheel.net/2015/10/the-deployment-age.html
|
| Feels like we're still in the exploration phase of GenAI, but ML
| seems like it is in the deployment phase.
| klooney wrote:
| A lot of the people writing are in the US, which mostly does R&D
| and services- broad automation of production is likely to be
| invisible here.
| mirekrusin wrote:
| So they are arguing which one will get more benefits first - r&d
| or general automation? What is the point in arguing around it?
|
| Disconnect between progress being done (ie. alphafold) and trying
| to infer answer from some historic stats on r&d investment,
| ratios, their past estimated impact etc. is... just weird.
|
| It's also funny that the whole ai itself together with constant
| breakthroughs is r&d.
| godelski wrote:
| I hate these people that try to argue we don't need R&D. It's
| extremely short sighted and equivalent to pretending that the
| ground you stand on is worthless. Without the ground, you
| literally have nothing to stand on... Talk about pulling
| yourself up by your bootstraps...
| godelski wrote:
| This is a bit silly. It is equivalent to saying "most food will
| come from tractors, not land." There is some truth to this, but
| you really can't have one without the other. The whole system is
| interconnected.
|
| The problem with all these jabs at R&D and science is not
| recognizing that R&D and science produce the very foundations
| that lead to the ability to do production in the first place. I'm
| certainly not saying we should dump all our money into R&D, but I
| do find it weird that others talk as if the ground you stand on
| doesn't matter. You literally cannot stand without it. The truth
| is that you need both. I suspect why we shy away from R&D is for
| 2 big reasons.
|
| First, it has a lot of failure. The hardest thing about doing
| research is being able to stick with it when 90% of what you do
| doesn't work. It's fucking hard. But of course it is. If it was
| easy it would have already been done. So returns on the work can
| take a lot of time and the visibility of the failure is
| emotionally draining to those without enough resilience.
|
| Second, we do not accurately capture nor ascribe the value nor of
| research. People who create ground breaking scientific
| revolutions that create the capacity for trillion dollar markets
| never end up with 1% of the result of their work. You don't see
| Tim Berners-Lee being a billionaire, nor Linus Torvald. You
| didn't see it in Einstein and cases like Turing are quite common
| through history. Certainly this is an alignment issue as we as a
| society should be encouraging such pursuits as their benefits
| vastly outweigh anything that has been done by Apple or Google.
| Not to diminish their achievements, they have both done fantastic
| and incredible things, but do they not sit on the foundations
| created by Turing, Burners-Lee, Hopper, and others. Or look even
| today, the work done by LeCun, Sutskever, Karpathy, Fei-Fei Li,
| Hinton, and yes, even Schmidhuber has created more than a few
| dozen multi-billion dollar enterprises. Yet as far as I am aware,
| not a single one of them is a billionaire. I do not believe (I
| could be TOTALLY wrong) their combined net worth is a billion.
| Even if it was, that would be a far cry from what many of the
| mogul we see today. Do we really think Zuckerberg has created
| more _value_ than these people? Certainly this is entirely
| dependent upon your definition of _value_ and I think most of use
| could agree that it would be incredibly naive to believe this
| exclusively means the money in their pockets. If you really do
| believe that, I will say that you 're part of a problem. Money is
| a proxy, sometimes we need to stop and think "a proxy for what?"
| akomtu wrote:
| If we discovered a civilization of moderately smart pandas living
| on a remote planet and dropped the AI technology onto them, what
| would happen to their civilization? And what's our motivation?
| callamdelaney wrote:
| Obviously?
|
| The US pays $12,000,000,000,000~ in salaries per year the TAM of
| automation is, assuming that 10% of work can be automated, $1.2
| trillion dollars.
| bashfulpup wrote:
| Very typical SV argument that R&D is "complex" and everything
| else is "simple".
|
| Would it blow your mind if I told you 10yrs ago that we'd have AI
| that can do math/code better than 99% of humans but ordering a
| hotdog on doordash would be cutting edge and barely doable?
|
| I don't disagree that "common" tasks are more valuable. I only
| argue that the argument these are easily automatable is a
| viewpoint based on ignorance. RPA has been around for over a
| decade and is not used in many tasks. AI is largely the same,
| until we get massive unrestriced access to the data for it we
| will not automate it.
| User23 wrote:
| The code that AI is good at currently is exactly common tasks.
|
| Good luck getting it to write a competitive video card driver
| for Nvidia hardware or anything else that requires actual
| creative problem solving that isn't github boilerplate.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-03-22 23:01 UTC)