11–20 of 164 posts
I like the historical part of this article, but the current problem is the reverse. Everyone is jumping on the AI train and forgetting the fundamentals.
> Even with evidence staring them in the face, carriage companies still did not pivot, assuming cars were a fad. I like this quote. But this analogy doesn’t exactly work. Withe this hype cycle, CEOs are getting out and saying that AI will replace humans, not horses. Unlike previous artisans making carriages, the CEOs saying these things have very clear motivations to make you believe the hype.
>Body by Fisher
which had an image of the carriages which they had previously made.
I like the historical part of this article, but the current problem is the reverse. Everyone is jumping on the AI train and forgetting the fundamentals.
I definitely don't think so. You're seeing companies who have a lot of publicity on the internet. There are tons of very successful SMBs who have no real idea of what to do with AI, and they're not jumping on it at all. They're at risk.
They're at risk of what? It's easy to hand-wave about disruption, but where's the beef?
From the article: _____ The first cars were: - Loud and unreliable - Expensive and hard to repair - Starved for fuel in a world with no gas stations - Unsuitable for the dirt roads of rural America _____ Reminds me of Linux in the late 90s. Talking to Solaris, HPUX or NT4 advocates, many were sure Linux was not going to succeed because: - It didn't support multiple processors - There was nobody to pay for commercial…
Actually, gasoline was readily available in its rôle as fuel for farm and other equipment, and as a bottled cleaning product sold at drug stores and the like.
>- Unsuitable for the dirt roads of rural America
but the process of improving roads for the new-fangled bicycle was well underway.
[1] Large language models may become an important component in whatever comes next, but I think we still need a component that can do proper reasoning and has proper memory not susceptible to hallucinating facts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I definitely don't think so. You're seeing companies who have a lot of publicity on the internet. There are tons of very successful SMBs who have no real idea of what to do with AI, and they're not jumping on it at all. They're at risk.
> They're at risk. They're at risk of what? It's easy to hand-wave about disruption, but where's the beef?
nice article, but then end with the brain dead "jump on [current fad]". If this was published a few months ago, it would be telling everyone to jump into web3.
I like the historical part of this article, but the current problem is the reverse. Everyone is jumping on the AI train and forgetting the fundamentals.
AI will plausibly disrupt everything
The only vaguely plausible and credible argument I can entertain is the one about AI being too expensive or detrimental to the environment, something which I have not looked sufficiently into to know about. Other than that, we are living so far off in the future, much more than I ever imagined in my lifetime! Wherever I go I see processes which can be augmented and improved though the use of these technologies, the surface of which we've only barely scratched!
Billions are being poured trying to use LLMs and GenAI to solve problems, trying to create the appropriate tools that wrap "AI", much like we had to do with all the other fantastic technology we've developed throughout the years. The untapped potential of current-gen models (let alone next-gen) is huge. Sure, a lot of this will result in companies with overpriced, over-engineered, doom-to-fail products, but that does not mean that the technology isn't revolutionary.
From producing music, to (in my mind) being absolutely instrumental in a new generation of education or mental health, or general support for the lonely (elderly and perhaps young?), to the service industry!...the list goes on and on and on. So much of my life is better just with what little we have available now, I can't fathom what it's going to be like in 5 years!
I'm sorry I highjacked your comment, but it boggles the mind how so many people so adamantly refuse to see this, to the point that I often wonder if I've just gone insane?!
> Even with evidence staring them in the face, carriage companies still did not pivot, assuming cars were a fad. I like this quote. But this analogy doesn’t exactly work. Withe this hype cycle, CEOs are getting out and saying that AI will replace humans, not horses. Unlike previous artisans making carriages, the CEOs saying these things have very clear motivations to make you believe the hype.
I'm not sure I agree much Cynically, there's no difference from a CEO's perspective between a human employee and a horse They are both expenses that the CEO would probably prefer to do without whenever possible. A line item on a balance sheet, nothing more