There's never been a better time to go into [insert field that is presently being helped by AI, but not yet fully autonomously replaced, giving the false impression and hope that somehow that's the way it will continue in the future].
I think it's fair to skip the video and go directly to the comments when it has a ragebait title, if Grant was mainly seeking serious discussion he'd use a serious title.
History has shown that a very potent tool can improved and changed industry entirely for the better. People now seems to be more negative than when atomic bomb was invented.
Looked what happened when crane was invented and not only more houses are built faster but also high rise building suddenly become feasible with more human being employed in the construction industry than ever.
> Why so negative? History has shown that a very potent tool can improved and changed industry entirely for the better.
AI isn't like any other historical tool or technology. Its qualitatively different. Flint axes or waterwheels or a plasma torches dont just suddenly appear everywhere, and then start getting rapidly (and likely recursively) better at the thing they do. While also mimicking innate human characteristics like complex language.
> Flint axes or waterwheels or a plasma torches dont just suddenly appear everywhere, and then start getting rapidly (and likely recursively) better at the thing they do.
Trains. Building railroads made everything faster, including building faster trains, which facilitated making cars and trucks, which facilitated airplanes, etc.
Fairly sure that even today if you memory wipe all knowledge of trains and train building (including road trains, like in Australia) and vaporize all railroads, locomotives, rail wagons, train stations, etc, it would set us back 50 years.
AI, computers, electricity, steam power, basic tools, and even fire all enabled in a dramatically faster rates of change compared to the immediately preceding era. You could also argue all also mimic certain human (or more broadly, animal) characteristics. I don't see what is truly unique to AI here. I'm not sure AI is even qualitatively unique from the computer, just the technology taken to it's logical conclusion.
Fundamentally I don't think "tool" is the right word for whatever generative AI is. Tools are normally designed with intention for a specific purpose, but AI systems are trained or grown.
To use an analogy, you can use a goat as a lawnmower - it'll keep the grass down for you. You could maybe even train it so it keeps it a specific length, but it's a goat - there's always a chance it will jump the fence or headbutt you or something else. It's an animal, not a tool. You can use AI as a tool, but that doesn't make it a tool.
Yes AI is arguably still software, but we have never seen programs with anything close to this level of flexibility and adaptability in software.
As another analogy, there's nothing special about neurons- their characteristics are broadly known and researchers have been able to simulate small numbers of them in computer models. However, when you have enough of them in the right structure, complex behaviours are possible which are never exhibited at the lower levels. There's nothing majorly different between the neurons in brains of a chimp and a human, but the capabilities and meta-capabilities are wildly different.
I think we see a similar step-change with generative AI systems.
Cranes were invented like 3000 BC, and their first known use in construction is in 600 BC. I can't think of a much slower development than the invention of cranes leading to the construction of high rise buildings
I feel like the power loom is a better comparison. It put hand weavers out of business over a short timespan, while revolutionizing how clothing is produced. It certainly empowered a lot of jobs surrounding clothing, until clothing was completely commoditization and is now a lot less well designed simply as a function of clothing as a category being a much cheaper product now
The fear of the atomic bomb is relatively instant (at "best") or as bad as finding out you have cancer. if you die, you die. You won't even perceive the pain. if you don't die, you do your day-to-day until some sickness hits you from radiation and then die.
The fear of AI is one that does (and already has, in many cases) in fact change your day-to-day. And given how the increasing economic disparity is going, it will not be one that changes the day to day for most people for the better. No one is positive because the current societal rate of change for most people is negative.
AI is a catalyst and will only accelerate what is already happening (since it fundamentally does not create nor open up new forms of labor). So it's clear why people who feel their day-to-day will get worse are not optimistic.
The crane is a poor analogy to a general purpose thinking machine that is intended to replace human effort and reasoning at all levels of abstraction in all cognitive endeavors.
I'm a fairly heavy user of LLMs [1] but i'm probably in the "AI is just a tool" camp.
Are you of the view that LLMs have more potential than the internet? The internet has been around for so long that it's had time to have actual impact and yet it barely shows up in GDP. It still has so much untapped potential even yet. LLMs are too new to have amassed much impact yet, certainly not on the scale of the internet. But they have lots of potential still untapped. I just don't see how we get to even 5% GDP impact with them (either positive or negative). But i could be in a blind spot, genuinely curious to learn another view point.
[1] I've built all sorts with them. I've built various ML models but the only LLM i've built was effectively following a tutorial, nanochat
The AI of today is just a tool, albeit a very powerful one. But I don't think it's a big step for it to reach a level where the majority of humans will be unable to to meaningfully contribute to the economy ten years from now.
I think computers, internet and AI - all of them have impact - but they consume it by converting it into new structure. The benefits are in the infra not handed out to us individually. We might not see large changes on individual level, or the displaced work is replaced by management work for the automations and raising baselines push us to do more. We now have data centers, fiber backbone, GPUs, models, apps and open source projects, yet we still only have 24 hours a day.
I keep seeing this argument. But isn’t the inverse true as well - if you extrapolate from the past movement of the ball, you will see it going way farther than it will actually go because of friction, wind, someone catching it, etc.? It seems reasonable to look at where the tech is right now if it helps you understand fundamental constraints. A person witnessing the first flight as a child and the moon landing in adulthood might expect FTL travel for their children if they didn’t understand physics.
> Are you of the view that LLMs have more potential than the internet?
Yes, it's not even close. There are lots of entire fields that will be wiped out by AI. Financial advisors for example. Good luck if you're a translator or a proof reader.
The world is slow so I expect it to take some time, depending on the field.
Today I started vibe coding a replacement for a piece of software whose licensing cost is on the order of $100k/year/seat. It's going scarily well. I'm scared.
> Looked what happened when crane was invented and not only more houses are built faster but also high rise building suddenly become feasible with more human being employed in the construction industry than ever.
New inventions eventually benefiting the society has always been accompanied by new jobs being created on top of those inventions, a culture of trust built upon mastering those inventions and a market being formulated around demand and supply cycle for those inventions. It is different now[1], because we neither see incentives being created for humans to operate/manage AI-led jobs (because utilizing such a thing is far more unfavorable than outsourcing due to economic incentives, duh) nor a foreseeable market stability for ever such thing to occur.
Are you sure we don't see AI operating roles grow?
Afaik the SWE roles that are being cutoff are mainly at the companies (faangs) shuffling the investments to GPUs and the rest of the economy (in the US) is not hiring because it's basically in a recession due to other economical reasons.
Anedoctiically I see the opposite in my neck of the woods and I have more work than before because of LLM since I basically transitioned to build LLM infrastructure
> People now seems to be more negative than when atomic bomb was invented.
When the atomic bomb was invented they didn’t hand one for free to everyone, and no one had access to sending their thoughts to everyone else in world.
> Looked what happened when crane was invented
That is a terrible comparison with no useful parallels. You can’t in god faith suggest something is going to have a desired effect because something completely unrelated did too. You could just as well have compared it to asbestos.
This is why taking advice from people who 'made it' is not as smart of an idea as people seem to think it is. You are subject to extreme survivorship bias who are normally going to be optimistic. It is feels good entertainment. You are not hearing the countless voices that failed even pre-AI for small and irrational reasons.
Math is not just a "field", it's a body of beautiful knowledge. It's never been easier than before to start learning it, if one wants to appreciate it for its own sake and not as a means to get famous or boost one's own ego.
Mathematics depends on technological advances to go forward, mathematics subjects are increasingly specialized, complex and take a long time to get up to speed.
Without another breakthrough like LLM, we risked that it would simply be close to impossible to make significant progress by the time the mathematicians finish being specialized in a field.
