Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Companies rein in AI usage as costs strain budgets

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 112 posts

Re: Companies rein in AI usage as costs strain budgets

#71

Post by nixpulvis »

asadotzler wrote: post #56
nixpulvis wrote: post #37

I'm so frustrated by both the zealous AI bulls and the blind AI opposition. There's a lot of issues, ranging over technical, cultural, environmental, and moral problems. But there's also obvious value. To say otherwise tells me you haven't actually tried to make use of these tools. It's one thing to get an AI google response and feel like it's dubious, it's another thing to know what you want and have an LLM find the…

>It's one thing to get an AI google response and feel like it's dubious, it's another thing to know what you want and have an LLM find the APIs for a framework you're not familiar with What I'm hearing is that the 0.00001% use case is great while the 99.9999% use case is shit--and we're supposed to think that's reasonable. Feeding nonsense to pretty much the entire population is just fine with tech bros because a few…

Google was never immune to spitting out junk BTW.

Like I said, if you can't see the value in AI, I'd hedge a bet you haven't tried. Even a brief conversation with google's can help identify a gap in your understanding of many topics.

How we balance the positives with the negatives is the hard part I want to hear thoughtful and studied opinions on.

Re: Companies rein in AI usage as costs strain budgets

#72

Post by lapcat »

asp_hornet wrote: post #69
lapcat wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a lot of issues, ranging over technical, cultural, environmental, and moral problems. But there's also obvious value. To say otherwise tells me you haven't actually tried to make use of these tools. Why would you try to make use of these tools when there are obvious environmental and moral problems with them? What do you tell yourself about those problems, and how do you get past them?

No OP but I can tell you exactly where I find my peace: 4 dependents, a cost of living that keeps rocketing and an industry that’s decided “the people who don’t glaze this shit don’t get to continue”. Maybe Ive sold out but what’s the alternative, I’m 17 years in, I can’t figure how I pivot my expertise and still support the family’s demands.

Fair enough. I have no criticism for people whose employers are forcing it on employees. I blame the employers there.

But the OP didn't sound like one of the reluctant.

Re: Companies rein in AI usage as costs strain budgets

#73

Post by skywhopper »

nixpulvis wrote: post #37

I'm so frustrated by both the zealous AI bulls and the blind AI opposition. There's a lot of issues, ranging over technical, cultural, environmental, and moral problems. But there's also obvious value. To say otherwise tells me you haven't actually tried to make use of these tools. It's one thing to get an AI google response and feel like it's dubious, it's another thing to know what you want and have an LLM find the…

There’s “obvious value” in lots of things that aren’t forced on us and that aren’t pretended to be something everyone is required to learn and use before sticking to their existing toolset or their preferred methods for getting things done.

Morality wise, it might have “obvious value” to poison my competitors and steal from my business partners, employees, and customers. That doesn’t mean I am obligated to “try to make use of these tools.”

Re: Companies rein in AI usage as costs strain budgets

#74

Post by lapcat »

nixpulvis wrote: post #70
lapcat wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a lot of issues, ranging over technical, cultural, environmental, and moral problems. But there's also obvious value. To say otherwise tells me you haven't actually tried to make use of these tools. Why would you try to make use of these tools when there are obvious environmental and moral problems with them? What do you tell yourself about those problems, and how do you get past them?

I think it's worth understanding the technology so we can have informed strategies for how to best regulate it. We don't solve the climate crisis by abandoning all the technological progress which has put such a strain on our ecosystem, we solve it by rethinking how we use this technology, and finding new technologies and policies to better meet our needs.

> I think it's worth understanding the technology so we can have informed strategies for how to best regulate it.

There's a significant difference between understanding a technology and using a technology. We can understand how a technology is made without totally changing our workflows to rely on it essentially.

How many cities do we have to blow up to understand nuclear weapons? That's a serious question, because atomic bombs were dropped on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

> We don't solve the climate crisis by abandoning all the technological progress which has put such a strain on our ecosystem, we solve it by rethinking how we use this technology

I don't think that's true. Shouldn't we abandon fossil fuels? Switch to cleaner energy, solar, wind, geothermal, electric cars, etc.?

Re: Companies rein in AI usage as costs strain budgets

#75

Post by thatfunkymunki »

asp_hornet wrote: post #69
lapcat wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a lot of issues, ranging over technical, cultural, environmental, and moral problems. But there's also obvious value. To say otherwise tells me you haven't actually tried to make use of these tools. Why would you try to make use of these tools when there are obvious environmental and moral problems with them? What do you tell yourself about those problems, and how do you get past them?

No OP but I can tell you exactly where I find my peace: 4 dependents, a cost of living that keeps rocketing and an industry that’s decided “the people who don’t glaze this shit don’t get to continue”. Maybe Ive sold out but what’s the alternative, I’m 17 years in, I can’t figure how I pivot my expertise and still support the family’s demands.

I've heard it being described as an iterated prisoner's dilemma and very many people are very publicly defecting.

Re: Companies rein in AI usage as costs strain budgets

#76

Post by nixpulvis »

lapcat wrote: post #74
nixpulvis wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's worth understanding the technology so we can have informed strategies for how to best regulate it. We don't solve the climate crisis by abandoning all the technological progress which has put such a strain on our ecosystem, we solve it by rethinking how we use this technology, and finding new technologies and policies to better meet our needs.

> I think it's worth understanding the technology so we can have informed strategies for how to best regulate it. There's a significant difference between understanding a technology and using a technology. We can understand how a technology is made without totally changing our workflows to rely on it essentially. How many cities do we have to blow up to understand nuclear weapons? That's a serious question, because a…

If a thinking machine can find new mathematical proofs we haven't thought of yet, it might also find new medicines and other things that really do make it worth finding a way to live with. If I can ask the thinking machine to find bugs in my code and it does, that seems nice to have.

The analysis that I want is on a studied cost/value basis somehow. I'd start by trying to force tech companies to sell products at cost sooner, so it's not driving markets before it can truly be absorbed. I'd also ask for energy/resource consumers to be forced to buy climate credits which are used to help offset the impacts and fund research and development for sustainable technology.

Re: Companies rein in AI usage as costs strain budgets

#77

Post by lapcat »

nixpulvis wrote: post #76
lapcat wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it's worth understanding the technology so we can have informed strategies for how to best regulate it. There's a significant difference between understanding a technology and using a technology. We can understand how a technology is made without totally changing our workflows to rely on it essentially. How many cities do we have to blow up to understand nuclear weapons? That's a serious question, because a…

If a thinking machine can find new mathematical proofs we haven't thought of yet, it might also find new medicines and other things that really do make it worth finding a way to live with. If I can ask the thinking machine to find bugs in my code and it does, that seems nice to have. The analysis that I want is on a studied cost/value basis somehow. I'd start by trying to force tech companies to sell products at cost…

Humans can already find new medicines and bugs in code. We didn't need AI to find the Covid vaccines, for example.

> The analysis that I want is on a studied cost/value basis somehow.

If something is immoral, do the ends justify the means? I would reiterate that you originally mentioned moral problems.

> I'd start by trying to force tech companies to sell products at cost sooner, so it's not driving markets before it can truly be absorbed.

That sounds an awful lot like abolishing capitalism. Which might actually help with the climate crisis, regardless of AI.

> climate credits

These always seemed like BS to me, a way for wealthy corporations to buy their way out of doing anything.

Re: Companies rein in AI usage as costs strain budgets

#78

Post by BrenBarn »

nixpulvis wrote: post #37

I'm so frustrated by both the zealous AI bulls and the blind AI opposition. There's a lot of issues, ranging over technical, cultural, environmental, and moral problems. But there's also obvious value. To say otherwise tells me you haven't actually tried to make use of these tools. It's one thing to get an AI google response and feel like it's dubious, it's another thing to know what you want and have an LLM find the…

I think it's possible to acknowledge that the technology has value while still being pretty much entirely opposed to AI as it exists and is being used today. It's sort of like believing we should have a police force while also believing that pretty much every existing police force should be disbanded and reconstituted from scratch (which also generated polarizing responses), or believing you need a government while also believing that all people currently in office are crooks. It's true there might be a version of something like AI that would be a net good, but I think that's quite far from what we actually have.

Re: Companies rein in AI usage as costs strain budgets

#79

Post by jcgrillo »

nixpulvis wrote: post #76
lapcat wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it's worth understanding the technology so we can have informed strategies for how to best regulate it. There's a significant difference between understanding a technology and using a technology. We can understand how a technology is made without totally changing our workflows to rely on it essentially. How many cities do we have to blow up to understand nuclear weapons? That's a serious question, because a…

If a thinking machine can find new mathematical proofs we haven't thought of yet, it might also find new medicines and other things that really do make it worth finding a way to live with. If I can ask the thinking machine to find bugs in my code and it does, that seems nice to have. The analysis that I want is on a studied cost/value basis somehow. I'd start by trying to force tech companies to sell products at cost…

> The analysis that I want is on a studied cost/value basis somehow.

Absolutely. The AI ROI question is the entire ballgame. Earlier today I heard the term "jagged technology" for the first time, and it's an extremely good one. Given how jagged AI appears to be, anecdotal reports are all over the place. It also doesn't help that it appears heavily using this technology can affect people psychologically. The information environment for someone who wants to know what this tool is good for and what it isn't is.. treacherous. Some clear, objective grounding would really help.

Re: Companies rein in AI usage as costs strain budgets

#80

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

simonw wrote: post #22
josefritzishere wrote: post #2

Companies are learning that even with mass layoffs, AI isn't worth what it costs for most use cases. This is an important inflection point because none of the AI companies are profitable, i.e. they're all still charging substantially less than what it costs to actually deliver the service. With things in that intermediate state, it's hard to know what a future stable state will be like.

If AI isn't worth what it costs why are some of these companies allowing $1,000+/employee/month?

It's just not very much money for these companies. The source article says Uber allows $1,500 per month, but senior engineers at Uber make $400k/yr ~= $33.3k/month; even disregarding fully-loaded cost, the AI only has to make them about 3% more productive to be worth it.
Post reply on HN