When liability exposure approaches 0—when no one pays the price for unverified failures—verification budgets collapse...Deployers flood the Runaway Risk Zone with unmonitored agents, capturing the gains of automation while socializing catastrophic risks.
OpenAI and Anthropic have entered the RSI era. OpenAI Research Progress Is Accelerating Due To OpenAI Research Progress OpenAI has been opening up lately about many things. The most important issue of all is that of the acceleration and automation of AI R&D.
With thousands of developed in a mono repo, it just does happen that one directory is missing one of the two files and this means that a subset of devs work with lobotomy. We fix this with automation but it’s a stupid complexity tax that shouldn’t have to be paid.
If you're doing highcale tasks, industrial scale tasks, you are going to make specialized machines that move and act in the physical world. The key part is move. If they're moving, they got to have wheels.
I would say that I expect like full automation of AR&D perhaps somewhere around like 2031 2030 and then getting to like the like beats all humans on the job milestone. Maybe I expect median around 2033
The evidence would show that and it makes perfect sense that AI and automation is creating jobs everywhere. The narrative about AI destroying jobs is exactly backwards. AI eliminate tasks. AI automates tasks away. But it doesn't necessary doesn't necessarily eliminate jobs.
And not only that, but like humans were already a bit of a bottleneck in the review process. Now it can be worse because things that we fairly straightforward changes that some companies had automation around reviewing, they've removed that reviewing because if AI is involved and they're worried about the verifiability or the reliability of the code.
The robot arm base case saves some hourly labor at the expense of adding more skilled labor, and can easily be negative if it needs reprogramming more than a few times per year.
AI has been compared to various historical precedents: electricity, industrial revolution, etc., I think the strongest analogy is that of AI as a new computing paradigm (Software 2.0) because both are fundamentally about the automation of digital information processing.
That's great, but I don't think it can replace a human poking at virtual machines; my experience with EC2 is that images break in all sorts of wild ways, and nothing beats a human for saying "huh, I have no idea what's going on here but something seems weird".
But even there I'm not actually looking at full automation yet. I'm looking for an autonomy slider and I almost expect that we are not going to instantly replace people. We're going to be swapping in AIs that do 80% of the volume. They delegate 20% of the volume to humans and humans are supervising teams of five AIs doing the call center work that's more rote.
Cursor… it’s tab completion model is industry leading, if you still write code yourself. I use VS Code mostly, I do like them pushing things like browser automation and plan mode tho.
But the reason why it's not the most important thing for the kind of skills that you saw when you visited us, it at some level I think it comes back to Moravik's paradox. So Morovik's paradox is basically that it's like you know if you know one thing about if you want to know one thing about robotics it's like that's that's the thing. Morovik's paradox says that basically uh in AI the easy things are hard and the hard things are easy.
And I think we'll see the same thing with automation where uh basically robot plus human is much better than just human or just robot. Uh and and that just like makes total sense. It also makes it much easier to get all the technology bootstrapped because when it's robot plus human, now there's a lot more potential for the robot to like actually learn on the job, acquire new skills.
if you tell what what jobs are most likely to be automated with the current generation of technology, you would probably put software engineering right at the top. The people building this technology or building the technology that is disrupting their own profession.
If you look at the most recent evidence on this issue, they found that post-1990, aging economies became richer. Not the other way around, which was true for the pre-1990 sample. And the reason is that these aging societies much more rapidly adopted new technologies, automation that actually helped the entire economy.
But my point is that this is still not the reason (or is only a very small reason) why these goods from China are cheaper than elsewhere. The main driver of lower labour costs has been automation; not having a human worker at all.
But, China mainly dominates these markets because it has produced a long-term industrial strategy for these technologies and has honed an optimised, modern supply chain as a result.
I’m unhappy with that. I would not be happy with information loss. I love that it’s telling us that there’s this crisis because I do think it’s giving us the clues, and we have to take them seriously.
I’m going back to the vacuum. The empty space, the beautiful event horizon I’ll give up locality, meaning that I will allow things to be connected non-locally by a wormhole.
But the funniest thing I think that comes out of this is Jevons paradox is true. AWS pricing for H100s has gone up over the last couple of weeks, since a little bit after Christmas, since V3 was launched, AWS H100 pricing has gone up.
This is a command line tool with plenty of plugins that lets you prompt different models. Think of it as a command-line version of Open WebUI. It’s particularly useful for quick scripting and basic automation.
So, we'll call that the indirect Fermi paradox and there absolutely is no indirect Fermi paradox for the most mundane of reasons, which is money. There's never been any money to look.
suggests that any steering automation safety gains (e.g., Level 2 autopilot) are approximately negated by driver complacency, with autopilot on being slightly worse than autopilot off
The liberation we are offered is a liberation from the very care-driven involvement in the world and in our communities that would render our lives meaningful and satisfying.
And we get to this point, these are the hardest decisions people ever wrestle with. And the paradox is if the advantages and disadvantages of the two options are almost perfectly balanced, it doesn't matter which one we pick. And yet we will spend days and weeks going around in a funk, which one am I going to choose?
Another thing that needs to be fixed when it ultimately breaks down, another bit of automation that works 99% of the time, but starts making funny noises when you slip into the 1%
If what's holding you back from shipping is, say, getting more customer input, or a brittle release process, or flaky monitoring, or missing tests, then all the bot does is to add noise. It doesn't help you ship.
A korrent is a belief a person has stated in their own words: one
sentence stating the claim, backed by a quote and a source, kept at
korrents.com.
Under a name here, the quoted block is what they actually said.
The korrent beneath it is the claim those words support, in
korrents' wording — tap it to see the record, its source, and who
else holds it.
Nobody here wrote their own korrents. They are compiled from public
statements, and a person can change their mind, which is recorded too.
About the English under a post
Some people here publish in a language other than English. Where they
do, this site shows a machine translation beneath the post, in
this typeface — the site's own, not theirs.
The post itself is never changed, moved or hidden: what is set in the
serif above is exactly what the person published, and it is what to
quote them on. A translation can be wrong in ways that matter,
especially about tone.
Only the post's own words are translated. A quoted post, a linked
article and a belief on korrents.com
are left in their original language.