[gyosko]

It seems that even discussion about AI is getting really polarized like everything else these days.

Comments are always one of these two types:

1 -> AI is awesome and perfect, if it isn't, another AI will make it perfect 2 -> AI is just garbage and will always be garbage

[ben_w]

I have seen those comments; but I do wonder, to what extent that is because the comments' authors intended such positions vs. the subtlety and nuance are hard to write and easy to overlook when reading? (Ironically, humans are more boolean than LLMs, the word "nuance" itself seems a bit like ChatGPT's voice).

I'm sure people place me closer to #1 than I actually feel, simply because I'm more often responding to people who seem to be too far in the #2 direction than vice versa.

[digging]

Your comment seems pretty accurate because, from my perspective, I've never seen comments of type #1. And so, despite me explicitly saying otherwise, people like the GP commenter may be reading my comments as #1.

[LegionMammal978]

Even within this thread, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41005386, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41005633, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41010124, and to a lesser extent https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41005240 seem like #1 to my eyes, with the sentiment of "It is detectable, therefore it will be easily corrected by near-future AI." Do you read these differently?

[ben_w]

Of these four:

The first ('''So this "one weird trick" will disappear without any special measures''' etc.) does not seem so to me, I do not read that as a claim of perfection, merely a projection of the trends already seen.

The second ('''If the computer can see it we have a discriminator than we can use in a GAN-like fashion to train the network not to make that mistake again.''') I agree with you, that's overstating what GANs can do. They're good, they're not that good.

The third ('''Once you highlight any inconsistency in AI-generated content, IMHO, it will take a nothingth of a second to "fix" that.''') I'd lean towards agreeing with you, that seems to understate the challenges involved.

The fourth ('''Well, nice find, but now all the fakes have to do is add a new layer of AI that knows how to fix the eyes.''') is technically correct, but contrary to the meme this is not the best kind of correct, and again it's downplaying the challenge same as the previous (but it is unclear to me if this is because nuance is hard to write and to read or the genuine position). Also, once you're primed to look for people who underestimate the difficulties I can easily see why you would see it as such an example as it's close enough to be ambiguous.

[surfingdino]

Nobody has given me a good reason to use it or proof that what it does is more than recombining what it hoovers up, so... I'm in the second camp.

[wvenable]

You could just... try it. It's very impressive what it can do. It's not some catch-all solution to everything but it saves me hours of time every week. Some of the things it can do are really quite amazing; my real-life example:

I took a picture of my son's grade 9 math homework worksheet and asked ChatGPT to tell me which questions he got wrong. It did that perfectly.

But I use for the more mundane stuff like "From this long class definition, can you create a list of assignments for each property that look this: object1.propertyName = object2.propertyName" and poof.

[bawolff]

I think its because at this point there is nothing else interesting to say. We've all seen AI generated images that look impressively real. We've also all seen artifacts proving they aren't perfect. None of this is really new at this point.

[rolph]

3 -> AI is still a technical concept, and does not yet exist.

[keybored]

Your comment is polarized.

Plenty of people think AI is useful (and equally as dangerous). Only useful, not redefines-everything. “I use AI as an assistant” is a common sentiment.

[netdevnet]

Also, discussion about AI:

- overwhelmingly focuses on LLMs

- assumes that AI equates LLMs

- assumes AGI is around the corner or it will never happen

[EGreg]

1 also says “anything bad that AI does was already bad before AI and you just didnt care, scale is irrelevant”.

[ectospheno]

I’m in the AI is very useful but horribly named camp. It is all A and no I.

[tivert]

> 1 -> AI is awesome and perfect, if it isn't, another AI will make it perfect 2 -> AI is just garbage and will always be garbage

3 -> An awesome AI will actually predictably be a deep negative for nearly all people (for much more mundane reasons than the Terminator-genocide-cliche), so the progress is to be dreaded and the garbage-ness hoped for.

Your 1 is warmed over techno-optimism, which is far past its sell-by date but foundational to the tech entrepreneurship space. Your 2 greatly underestimates what tech people can deliver.