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

Even Apple cannot explain why we need AI in our lives

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–149 of 149 posts

Re: Even Apple cannot explain why we need AI in our lives

#141

Post by mvid »

JohnFen wrote: post #89
crazygringo wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It certainly feels like the AI bubble is popping. Objectively, no it doesn't. Even if you think it's a bubble, then the bubble is just growing. There are zero signs of anything popping yet. Company valuations are only increasing. > Nvidia as the most valuable company in the world? It makes sense when you look at the financials. It's like back in 1800's when railroads were the new thing, and imagine there were only…

I think it's more like the San Francisco gold rush. The gold prospectors didn't make a lot of money. The people who made bank were the ones selling goods and services to the prospectors. Selling the shovels is more profitable, and has the bonus of not being dependent on whether or not your customers actually find gold.

It feels like at the point in software hype bubbles, everyone is using this metaphor, and is trying to sell wholesale shovels to shovel salesmen. Kind of like an MLM.

NVIDIA, specifically, doesn’t really make a compelling product, but is trying to make it seem like their tools can eventually make a compelling product, so build your platform on NVIDIA so that you can sell the opportunity that allows compelling products…

Re: Even Apple cannot explain why we need AI in our lives

#142

Post by senordevnyc »

HumblyTossed wrote: post #112
senordevnyc wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where have they been wrong?

You're kidding, right?

Not really...crypto is the biggest one that people cite, but the crypto ecosystem seems to be humming along. It hasn't taken over the world, but it also hasn't really fizzled imo. I haven't really paid attention to whether VCs are still investing there.

I guess maybe VR is another one? But that's another example of a slowly growing ecosystem.

I think mostly the people who think some piece of hot tech is going to take over the world aren't usually wrong, they're just early.

Re: Even Apple cannot explain why we need AI in our lives

#143

Post by senordevnyc »

danaris wrote: post #99
senordevnyc wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where have they been wrong?

Cryptocurrency? NFTs? The Metaverse? Google Glass? Betamax?

Hmm...I didn't understand the comment to be about specific products, so I'd take Glass and Betamax off the list.

I really don't think crypto or VR or AR are going to fizzle, I think they're just early in their overall lifecycle. I absolutely think that in ten or twenty years those categories will be much larger than today.

Re: Even Apple cannot explain why we need AI in our lives

#144

Post by senordevnyc »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #115
senordevnyc wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where have they been wrong?

Depends on your definition of "fizzle out". If you mean "not dominate the future, but be relegated to merely a niche tech", then: Ruby on Rails. Modula-2. Every JavaScript framework since ever. Supersonic passenger flight. Space tourism. Emitter-coupled logic. Gallium arsenide (still has my vote for a name for a speed-metal band). Musk's Boring Company. I'm sure I could go on with some more thought.

I didn't understand the comment to be about specific products, but more overall categories. I think space tourism is likely going to be a huge category, it's just decades away still. I don't know about supersonic passenger flight or building tunnels everywhere. It may never be worth it for those categories.

But regardless, I don't think that many people really thought Musk was going to build much with Boring. I certainly didn't.

And has anyone in the last three decades (other than Boom's hapless investors) thought that supersonic passenger flight was going to be huge?

Re: Even Apple cannot explain why we need AI in our lives

#145

Post by senordevnyc »

ben_w wrote: post #96
HumblyTossed wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but a lot of smart people seem to think they won't. A lot of smart people _always_ seem to think won't fizzle out.

Sure, hard to tell either way. That's kinda how bubbles happen in the first place, because if we really knew how valuable something was, it would already have the price to reflect that. But it's also why Lord Kelvin claimed in 1895 "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible"* and in 1897 that "radio has no future". * don't ask me why birds were not a proof by example; we have the same problem today with regards…

Great examples.

It seems like one of the defining characteristics of a paradigm-shifting technology is that a lot of smart people dismiss it at first. The skepticism and cynicism I see about AI from the HN crowd (of all places) is such a great example. I use AI every day as both a user and developer and it's an incredible gamechanger. It's pretty surprising to me how incurious and conservative many HN commentators appear to be, but maybe it shouldn't. I'm guessing the median age on this site of the active commenters is now in the mid 30s or early 40s.

Re: Even Apple cannot explain why we need AI in our lives

#146

Post by talldayo »

choeger wrote: post #140
pjc50 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here are a few services that might get by without a web browser or app soon: > 1. online banking ??! You've got a system of unpredictable reliability and you're going to let it handle money? Online banking has always been extremely conservative, sometimes for good reason.

> ??! You've got a system of unpredictable reliability and you're going to let it handle money? Yes. Recall phone banking? I imagine it like that. Potentially via a chat service like Whatsapp or signal. You'd start with simple standard tasks and low limits, if course. But the risk and value can be directly quantified in online banking.

I remember how phone banking relied on the honesty of individual, accountable employees. How do you hold AI accountable? You give it low limits, write off the mistakes and keep scaling and ignoring failure even at the million-dollar-mistake level?

Banks indeed look at things in terms of risk mitigation, but this is silly. You will not see a credible bank incorporate LLM-based features because it is a genuinely enormous attack surface with marginal ROI. Any logical developer would create an ELIZA-style on-rails system instead, and it would never misbehave like ChatGPT.

Re: Even Apple cannot explain why we need AI in our lives

#147

Post by talldayo »

mg wrote: post #83

AI is already so woven into my life. I use it all the time and wouldn't want to go back. For example I made a bookmarklet that summarizes articles linked from HN. So the way I have skimmed this article is by reading this: Apple's new AI offering, Apple Intelligence, seems unoriginal and derivative compared to competitors. Apple is partnering with OpenAI to integrate ChatGPT, but the integration appears halfhearted. T…

Honest question; is there anything in that summary you just posted that a normal human couldn't infer from just reading the title?

Re: Even Apple cannot explain why we need AI in our lives

#148

Post by JohnFen »

iknownthing wrote: post #103
JohnFen wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more like the San Francisco gold rush. The gold prospectors didn't make a lot of money. The people who made bank were the ones selling goods and services to the prospectors. Selling the shovels is more profitable, and has the bonus of not being dependent on whether or not your customers actually find gold.

But if enough prospectors fail to find gold the demand for shovels will eventually go down.

Yep, and the shovel-sellers cry all the way to the bank.

Re: Even Apple cannot explain why we need AI in our lives

#149

Post by [deleted] »

choeger wrote: post #56

"AI" (or rather language models) will change the world. But in a very different way. They aren't (and won't become) AGI. They aren't (and won't) replace software engineers (but maybe help them to write better software, or more realistically churn out even more bad software). And they aren't and won't become ultra-wise oracles that can solve any task you throw at them. But they are an interface between the real world…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN