121–130 of 228 posts
> We will quickly lose even the social permission to take something like energy [...] A way to drum up sense of urgency without mentioning that it's the patience of the investors (and _not_ the public) that will be the limiting factor here?
Things AI is already better at than (many/most) humans: Customer service (chat, phone), writing software, writing docs about software, computer graphics (animation, images), driving cars. There are plenty of uses for AI. Right now, the industry is heavily spending on training new models, improving performance of existing software and hardware, and trying to create niche products. Power usage for inference will drop d…
An AI might be better than an indian call center but I doubt that when the AI is made by indians anyway.
> writing software, writing docs about software
I have asked AI about exactly one topic and it lied about the API of a library making up the functions I was supposed to call.
> computer graphics (animation, images)
I have indeed seen many wonderful meme images come out of the generators but that was before they got lobotomized for producing that subject matter
[EDIT]
And the worst part is these are all just more "software as a service" designed to remove the possibility of using a tool without approval.
LLMs and their capabilities are very impressive and definitely useful. The productivity gains often seem to be smaller than intuitively expected though. For example, using ChatGPT to get a response to a random question like "How do I do XYZ" is much more convenient than googling it, but the time savings are often not that relevant for your overall productivity. Before LLMs you were usually already able to find the in…
I use ChatGPT “thinking” mode as a way to run multiple searches and summarize the results. It takes some time, but I can do other stuff in another tab and come back. It’s for queries that are unlikely to be satisfied in a single search. I don’t think it would be a negligible amount of time if you did it yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It will often literally just make up the documentation. If you ask for a link, it may hallucinate the link. And unlike a search engine where someone had to previously think of, and then make some page with the fake content on it, it will happily make it up on the fly so you'll end up with a new/unique bit of fake documentation/url! At that point, you would have been way better off just... using a search engine?
how is it hallucinating links? The links are direct links to the webpage that they vectorized or whatever as input to the LLM query. In fact, on almost all LLM responses DuckDuckGo and Google, the links are right there as sited sources that you click on (i know because I'm almost always clicking on the source link to read the original details, and not the made up one
One time I tried to use Gemini to figure out 1950s construction techniques so I could understand how my house was built. It made a dubious sounding claim about the foundation, so I had it give me links and keywords so I could find some primary sources myself. I was unable to find anything to back up what it told me, and then it doubled down and told me that either I was googling wrong or that what it told me was a historical “hack” that wouldn’t have been documented.
These were both recent and with the latest models, so maybe they don’t fully fabricate links, but they do hallucinate the contents frequently.
LLMs and their capabilities are very impressive and definitely useful. The productivity gains often seem to be smaller than intuitively expected though. For example, using ChatGPT to get a response to a random question like "How do I do XYZ" is much more convenient than googling it, but the time savings are often not that relevant for your overall productivity. Before LLMs you were usually already able to find the in…
Now instead of the wikipedia article you are reading the exact same thing from google's home page and you don't click on anything.
LLMs and their capabilities are very impressive and definitely useful. The productivity gains often seem to be smaller than intuitively expected though. For example, using ChatGPT to get a response to a random question like "How do I do XYZ" is much more convenient than googling it, but the time savings are often not that relevant for your overall productivity. Before LLMs you were usually already able to find the in…
LLMs and their capabilities are very impressive and definitely useful. The productivity gains often seem to be smaller than intuitively expected though. For example, using ChatGPT to get a response to a random question like "How do I do XYZ" is much more convenient than googling it, but the time savings are often not that relevant for your overall productivity. Before LLMs you were usually already able to find the in…
This is partly because Google is past the enshittification hump and ChatGPT is just starting to climb up it - they just announced ads.
wondering how is it going to work when they "search the web" to get the information, are they essentially going to take ad revenue away from the source website?
This will sound pedantic but I'll explain why it matters: the exact wording is "We need to do something useful with AI", because the current (editorialized) submission title (of an already slanted article) makes it sound like people don't know what to do with AI. We already know many useful things to do; there are already 10,000 startups (9789 out of YC alone, 4423 of which are coding-related) doing various ostensibl…
There has to be gold in the West! Look at all of the prospectors moving there to get rich on gold! You have not demonstrated that there are 10k uses of AI, you've only demonstrated that there are 10k "businesses" interested in making money off of AI. Just like there were 10k+ crypto-currencies... Just like there were 10k+ "uber but for..." apps. Where are these failed gold-rush attempts now?
Investors are currently rewarding the words "AI", so (to extend the analogy) when the gold moved, the gold rushers moved to where they thought the gold would be.
Also your emphasis doesn't change the reading of the sentence.