There's one of mine in there where I predicted in 2023 that it would be 20 years until AI would be reliably able to entirely build and deploy arbitrary applications from a prompt. I was off by about 18 years on that one!
At least 1/3rd of these predictions aren't clear enough to determine exactly what is being claimed/predicted. Even after reading the full comment multiple times, on a lot of them I couldn't tell where the author had set the goalposts well enough to say whether we've crossed it or not.
Well, I can answer this one: <a href="https://stoppels.ch/goalposts/?c=40662140" rel="nofollow">https://stoppels.ch/goalposts/?c=40662140</a><p>jerf, 2024: "If it could be solved with a Math Overflow-post level of effort, even from Terence Tao, it isn't what I was talking about as "high level math".<p>"I also am not surprised by "Consider a generation function" coming out of an LLM. I am talking about a system that could solve that problem, entirely, as doing high level math. A system that can emit "have you considered using wood?" is not a system that can build a house autonomously.<p>"It especially won't seem all that useful next to the generation of AIs I anticipate to be coming which use LLMs as a component to understand the world but are not just big LLMs."<p>The voting gloss: "An AI fully solves a research-level math problem on its own, not just suggesting an approach."<p>Yes, I'm satisfied. I don't even feel bad in hindsight. Coding assistants had a nice, gradual rise up the utility curve. Math went from "lol, can't add two six-digit numbers" to research-math level almost overnight in comparison.
Right - people on HN are <i>generally</i> reasonable about objective things. The vast majority of comments (outside those chosen for this website) are not "AI will never ..." but rather, "AI does not currently ...". Of course the further you go back (I'm seeing a lot of comments from ten years ago!) the more skeptical they get, obviously. That's a funny thing to go back and see with modern context, but it doesn't really call for snideness/mockery (something I think is sadly increasing on HN).
> cannot do precise things like coding software since humans will never be able to use natural language to specify their requirements.<p>To your point, this example. The issue expressed here is with humans, not AI. We are still pretty terrible at writing specs. TBF, the AIs are too but that wasn’t being voted on.
Heh, there's one of mine: <a href="https://stoppels.ch/goalposts/?c=39727943" rel="nofollow">https://stoppels.ch/goalposts/?c=39727943</a><p>"GPT-4 looks at original ASCII art of a foot, not copied from the web, and says it is a foot."<p>The vote is currently 64% yes, 18% no.<p>Just now I asked Opus 5.5 to generate an ASCII art foot, and it did a passable job. It's not great, but it's a foot. Then I pasted it into ChatGPT (whatever they're serving to the free tier by default, which seems to be 5.6 Luna), and it said it was a "train/locomotive": <a href="https://chatgpt.com/share/6abeaa39-cc80-83ed-851f-29370db08964" rel="nofollow">https://chatgpt.com/share/6abeaa39-cc80-83ed-851f-29370db089...</a><p>Maybe it's Opus's fault for drawing a bad foot but I think it's fair to say LLMs are still pretty bad at ASCII art (without additional tool calling etc).
For me, 6.1 Sol nailed it immediately:<p>> A bare foot and ankle, pointing right, with three little toes.<p>I wonder how much of the wide variation in perceptions of LLM capabilities is driven by the gulf between free models and frontier models. Luna getting something wrong is not always great evidence for LLMs be unable to do that thing.<p>Edit: for curious skeptics without access to 6.1 Sol, I tried 3 times and it got it all 3 times. Convo share link: <a href="https://chatgpt.com/share/e/6abeb955-7614-832e-a5e1-b1bd134f1971" rel="nofollow">https://chatgpt.com/share/e/6abeb955-7614-832e-a5e1-b1bd134f...</a>
Case in point, this nonsense came out of 5.6 Luna: <a href="https://chatgpt.com/share/6abeae1e-42b4-83ed-8966-7e82ae0bef5c" rel="nofollow">https://chatgpt.com/share/6abeae1e-42b4-83ed-8966-7e82ae0bef...</a><p>Like, is this an ice-cream? A tooth?
Please share a link to the conversation, otherwise I am not buying it.<p>Because "for me DeepSeek Flash 4.1 nailed it immediately", trust me bro.
Mm, I kina agree with the AI on this one:<p><pre><code> (_)(_)(_) represents the wheels
</code></pre>
They do look rather wheel-like; I have to assume you see them as toes though?<p>It's like the duck-bunny picture to me. If I focus on the "wheels", I see a steam train locomotive (but perhaps I'm only seeing that because I read your comment?); if I look at the ankle I see a foot.
I think the problem is that you're using basing your conclusion from the cheap/dumb models available on the free tier of services. I just asked GPT6-Astra in Codex and it replied:<p>"It’s ASCII art of a bare foot and lower leg, with the toes pointing to the right."<p>No tool calling, just an immediate reply with the correct answer.
Opus 5.5 was able to parse and understand an ASCII art foot when I pasted one in.
Readers: before you vote or comment, look at that foot.<p>I think I would have failed this test!
To be fair if a human was given a linear sequence representing ascii art you couldn't tell either
This is a Rorschach test, not a foot. If you'd shown this to me without telling me what it was meant to be first, I'd have guessed a crematorium.
These questions could benefit from being rephrased to make it clear what is being voted for
Very pleased one of my predictions was totally wrong: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23252711">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23252711</a><p>Sure, sure, what
LLMs make still isn't "efficient bug-free code": my
prediction is falsified because while LLMs can write and train new models with machine learning, ML is fundamentally not advanced enough to throw arbitraty new tasks at like this.
Somewhat appropriate the site the OP links to is called „goalposts“ because as far as I can see, people keep shifting theirs.<p>In your case, the comment you link to says „business tasks“ and you expanded it now to „arbitrary new tasks“. Those are not the same. An LLM today sure can do many many many business-speak conversion tasks.
> An LLM today sure can do many many many business-speak conversion tasks<p>Not reliably, and not without supervision. That's the main point. I'm trying really hard to figure out a workflow that doesn't require me to review the code and I just don't see how it's possible (yet)<p>You either need a comprehensive test suite (which requires understanding the code in order to create) or you need to review the actual implementation code to make sure it does the right thing
I'm not always precise with my language, but business tasks can be pretty broad, I think "arbitrary new tasks" is not an unreasonable rephrasing on my part?<p>Consider I was replying to this:<p>> So are we all going to be out of a job?<p>While your boss now has the capacity to ask Claude to train a new AI model to auto-balance a tower defence game's mob, cost, and tower parameters (I know because I've done it), this only matters if you and your boss are working in a video games company.<p>If you and your boss are actually florists, you care if your boss can get Claude to automate a rose pruning, dead-heading, and fertilising robot.<p>People are trying, but I don't think they'd be happy with 91.5% success rate: <a href="https://www.emerald.com/ir/article-abstract/doi/10.1108/IR-04-2026-0198/1398287/Design-and-experimental-evaluation-of-an?redirectedFrom=fulltext" rel="nofollow">https://www.emerald.com/ir/article-abstract/doi/10.1108/IR-0...</a>
Don't get me wrong, we are all guilty of this.<p>It's just amazing how quickly we accept that models are good at something.<p>My florist boss can't get Claude to automate rose pruning. But she sure as hell doesn't need to wait until Jacques is back in the shop to respond to that French supplier anymore. There is a lot of "business tasks" that are just paper being shuffled around no matter if you are a florist, baker, workshop owner, custom CNC shop, student offering lessons in extra time or whatever. And LLMs are already scary good at those.
> There is a lot of "business tasks" that are just paper being shuffled around no matter if you are a florist, baker, workshop owner, custom CNC shop, student offering lessons in extra time or whatever. And LLMs are already scary good at those.<p>Yes indeed, but I was responding to "So are we all going to be out of a job?", not "Will AI radically change the jobs market?"<p>We got the thing I thought would make everyone unemployed (AI which can make AI), but it turned out the AI good enough to make AI, happened before we figured out the general problem of few-shot learning that would mean the AI made by AI puts us all out of jobs.
You can't ignore the rest of the sentence. "every other task their business does" "everyone will be out of a job"<p>This means it has to handle basically all business tasks, so "arbitrary". I'm not sure what percent you have in mind by "many many many" but I would say it can't code half the things you need in an efficient and minimally buggy way.
What code does a village vet clinic need? In all seriousness.<p>Even IF they need code, they need at best a CRUD app to track patients, that's it. There is no way Fable or Opus 5.5 can't one-shot a village vet clinic app in 30 minutes, and only with "I need a village vet clinic app" as a prompt, and whatever questions it decides to ask along the way with it's "ask user" tool.<p>Or a florist, to use the example from a sibling comment.<p>Code is tiny part of "business".
Anything you can't solve with code just means the AI is doing worse on the benchmark isn't it? That's why I didn't go into detail on that aspect.<p>And that one shot app is not going to be bug free.
> What code does a village vet clinic need? In all seriousness.<p>Automated diagnostics, pharmacist, surgical robot, something to express anal glands without harming the patient.<p>Dog-English machine translation.
> reliably convert business-speak into efficient bug-free code<p>I actually think this would take AGI to solve, which makes me optimistic about the future of software development.<p>All the benchmarks are currently testing against automated tests the AI can use as an oracle
so the conditions for your prediction simply haven't been met yet.<p>if/when you can tell a model to do a thing and be confident that it did the thing, it's joever for 90% of knowledge workers.
What is interesting to me is in 2016 people were like; pass Turing test, write code, order me a coffee.<p>And even in 2024 the themes are similar, generally more complex or specific about the coding/turing/action test.<p>But in 2026 a huge shift, we have things like; can open a physical door, emulates human pettiness convincingly, makes novel scientific breakthroughs.<p>That alone tells you a lot IMO
Sigh, the whole "obviously the turing test is solved" meme is annoying.<p>Like, if we meant that it convincingly masquerades as a shitposter, ok. But everyone still bitches about AI slop, and everyone knows the writing is still bad. How does that even work if the turing test is obviously solved?<p>More to the point though, if you grill SOTA models on counterfactuals, causal world-models etc, you'll trip them up in a way that actually <i>will not work</i> on ESL students and children. Certainly there's no way to find a person that struggles with that <i>and</i> is also capable of cheerful fluent erudite discussion about astrophysics with perfect grammar. Yes, it's getting harder obviously.. but detecting machines with determined, focused and intelligent interrogation remains pretty easy. If nothing else, the models are cooperative where people wouldn't be and that's a signal too.<p>The best progress we've made is that most people do agree that this <i>doesn't practically matter</i> very much, i.e. we generally recognize the stakes were always overstated. But the constant vague appeals to common-sense that "of course it's a solved problem!" always feels naive or fake.
Not sure why this thread got flagged ?<p>Its fun. Can you add a sort by controversial? I'd like to know where people disagree the most between yes and no.
The Turing test is interesting, because I believe that the current LLMs are perfectly capable of parsing the it in many situations. On the other hand we also have people are sound like they aren't real.<p>Looking back, was the Turing test flawed perhaps? It failed to take into account that humans can be rather bad at telling actual people from a "parrot". Turing was perhaps a little to optimistic about people.
All I learned from this is that 40% of hackernews are AI haters which maps pretty well from the overtly negative sentiment on it constantly.
If for each mistaken prediction there was some mild accountability, like someone shows up and slaps you with a trout, it would improve the site. But it should be added to the terms of service first.
Is it really AGI if it can’t come to my address and slap me with a trout? Clearly AI is all hype /s
Alternatively, you can bet on your predictions. If you're wrong, you lose money.
How was this assembled? From a meta point of view, how much AI was used to curate and highlite the goals; how much was used to assemble the site itself? Or deploy it?
A chess scoresheet sometimes contains mistakes but chess players can figure out in many cases what was meant by thinking of what moves make sense and considering the level of play so far. Popular AIs tools fail at that.
Chess is an interesting case. I remember in 2023, GPT 3.5 or something used to be surprisingly good at chess. There was even a "stochastic parrot chess" website [1]. I recall it was playing decently at around a 1800 level. Even as a fairly okay player myself (2100 bullet on lichess), I struggled to beat it. However, modern LLMs are a lot worse at chess. I guess having too much chess data in the training set probably regressed performance on stuff that actually matters, like coding.<p>[1] parrotchess.com, no longer available. Previous discussions: <a href="https://hn.algolia.com/?q=parrotchess.com" rel="nofollow">https://hn.algolia.com/?q=parrotchess.com</a>
I made a bet with a guy on HN that the market value of OpenAI + Anthropic would get to at least 2.5T by 2027. I think I'm on track to winning.<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48517353">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48517353</a><p>I also made a bet that API inference margins are greater than 10% for OpenAI and Anthropic<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48500827">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48500827</a><p>I can make another prediction about Agentic Commerce and I think it will get big. Muse + Grok Bot + Dots.
I love it! Kinda wholesome how that heated discussion ended with that bet.
You're very lucky that market value and actual value isn't the same thing.
But there is no market value pre ipo
> API inference margins are greater than 10% for OpenAI and Anthropic<p>How do you measure that?
Quite a few of the challenges revolve around asking for LLMs to complete tasks reliably and aren't about whether an instance of an LLM completing the task exists. Quite a few of the goalposts are consequently completely changed without the surrounding context, are not the same as what the HN commenter requested and hence seem disingenuous to me.
Well I said that before AI will soon make the pcb and electronics just like code, it seems some hw engineers didn’t like it, months later there are few products about the same idea :)
[flagged]