One AI Answer a Day: Dream or Dud? Community Skeptical of Super-AI Oracle

The idea of a collective, daily query posed to a super-intelligent AI captured imaginations on Hacker News, with a user proposing that "people vote on one question for an AI to answer each day," an AI that "could devote massive computational resources to answering" it. This vision, however, was quickly met with critical analysis from the community, dissecting its feasibility and ultimate utility.

The Allure and the Sci-Fi Precedents

The concept taps into a long-held fascination with oracular machines. Yet, commenters were quick to invoke science fiction that explores the limitations of such endeavors. One user immediately referenced Isaac Asimov's "The Last Question" with the AI's famous response to how entropy might be reversed: INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER. This set a skeptical tone, suggesting that some fundamental questions might be beyond even vast computational power or require data humanity doesn't possess.

Another commenter humorously alluded to Douglas Adams' "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by asking, “What do you get if you multiply six by nine?” – a nod to Deep Thought, a supercomputer that, after millennia of calculation, provided the unhelpful answer "42" to the "Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything," highlighting that the answer might be absurd or that the question itself is the real challenge.

Practical and Philosophical Roadblocks

Beyond these literary warnings, practical concerns dominated the discussion:

• Cost: The "massive computational resources" don't come free. As one user succinctly put it: "Someone has to pay for it." The economic viability of such a daily, intensive operation was a primary concern.
• Accuracy: Even with immense power, "It could still be wrong." The reliability of AI, especially for complex or nuanced questions, remains a significant hurdle. An incorrect answer, amplified by the system's perceived authority, could be problematic.
• The "To What End?" Question: A fundamental critique was voiced: "To what end? It's not as though throwing computing power at 'questions' just solves problems." This points to the nature of problem-solving itself – many issues require creativity, ethical judgment, new discoveries, or human action, not just raw computation.

What Questions, and Do We Need This?

The discussion also touched upon the type of questions that would be posed. One commenter directly asked the original poster, "OP, what’s your question?" implying that the value of such a system heavily depends on the questions deemed worthy of such resources.

Furthermore, the utility was questioned in light of current AI accessibility. A user noted, "you can just copy paste any question you want into AI," suggesting that existing models already cater to individual curiosity, albeit without the "massive computational resources" dedicated to a single, voted query. This raises the question of what unique value this proposed system would offer over democratized access to current and future AI tools.

Conclusion: An Idea Facing Steep Challenges

While the concept of a daily, community-driven AI oracle holds a certain appeal, the Hacker News discussion highlighted significant skepticism. The core challenges revolve around the immense cost, the inherent fallibility of AI, and the more profound question of whether brute-force computation can truly address the most meaningful or complex human inquiries. The consensus leaned towards this being an idea that, while thought-provoking, faces substantial practical and philosophical obstacles before it could provide consistent, meaningful value.