logoalt Hacker News

johnsmith1840yesterday at 7:31 PM1 replyview on HN

Yes my only point here is that you can argue about the semantics of how smart they really are but they are undeniably smart.

Today it cost massive effort but it's possible 10-20yrs from now an AI could solve a problem like this in under an hour with a single thread on a free subscription paid for by serving an ad.

These arguments are so weak because you'll then have to make the same one a few years from now when it does something else impossible. The argument only stands if we assume no progress will occur.


Replies

streetfighter64yesterday at 7:51 PM

Funny that you imagine a future where AI can solve complex math quickly, but humans are still watching ads, for some reason.

I just think you and the other guy have different definitions of "smart". There's no denying that LLMs are useful, but I don't know if I'd classify them as "smart". There were probably people in the 80s saying computers were "smart" because they could compute 78971 * 12341 faster than a human.

In what sense is a LLM "undeniably smart" but a CPU from the 80s isn't? Or would you define such a CPU as "smart"?

show 1 reply