Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
LLMs can, in principle, do everything humans can. And arguably more. "Right now" is how long? People are slow.

"Provable" essentially means, you have explicit operators acting on explicit states in an exhaustively defined way that preserves "truth", explicitly defined invariants.

A finite thing you can argue over deterministically.

Obviously, "you" there is an LLM, the machine your code is run on has to be defined in that very same exacting manner and so on.

That still isn't enough, you need abstraction, a hierarchy of categories that preserve your intent and accurately describe the problem space.

"Programming" then is solving an inverse problem over that hierarchy, filling in the blanks sensibly on your way down through the model hierarchy, all the way to atomic instructions your (proven) hardware understands.

Those layers of proper abstraction is what's largely missing currently. Or rather, is merely vaguely approximated.

All of which is to say: yes, the current state is a mess. Resolving that is far from easy.

But you really have no choice, that mess is transparent to large-enough LLMs. Security by obscurity only goes so far.

> But you really have no choice, that mess is transparent to large-enough LLMs.

It's transparent to large-enough LLMs given enough resources. Which is the thing that was always true. The difference now is that the level of resources is lower, so we're finding a bunch of things it wasn't previously economical to find.

But the cost still isn't zero. On top of that, the same LLMs are now generating enormous volumes of new code, which both nobody has verified to that level of exaction and nobody has even considered how it interacts with existing and other new code.

> Those layers of proper abstraction is what's largely missing currently. Or rather, is merely vaguely approximated.

This I can agree with, and my perspective would be that we have theoretical solutions with no ergonomics, and rely on unproven (as in formally proven/validated) mechanisms. WASM + capability passing is enough, but the WASM layer is still built on an OS or runtime that is not proven and you'll have a heck of a time trying to build a product on it

LLMs can't do a backflip. I can.
I can’t do a backflip. I guess I’m subservient to LLMs then.
Unitree's H2-X can.

https://youtu.be/Y3zb4o47yqA

loading story #50374136
> LLMs can, in principle, do everything humans can.

I think narrowing the scope of this statement would better support your argument, as it is easily disproved in its current form.

> LLMs can, in principle, do everything humans can.

Oh yeah? slides baton Pick up that can, Clanker.

Jokes aside, I do want to see the first news of AI going out of its way to acquire and make use of actual currency and hiring a meat proxy. I don't even care what for, can be making paperclips.

The first such news is pretty old: In ARC's 2023 eval of GPT-4, it hired a TaskRabbit worker to bypass a CAPTCHA out of the small research budget allocated to the agent. Even the rentahuman.ai site which forms a market for meat puppets is kinda old now.