141–150 of 503 posts
and will trigger the collapse of the wider asset price bubble, with consequent economic turmoil - an unfortunately necessary reset, in my opinion.
I suppose the good news is that likely the current US administration will wear this one, though not completely being their fault (much like Covid), and a political reset will also ensue.
> When you put aside the hype and anecdotes, generative AI has languished in the same place, even in my kindest estimations, for several months, though it's really been years. The one "big thing" that they've been able to do is to use "reasoning" to make the Large Language Models "think" [...] This is missing the most interesting changes in generative AI space over the last 18 months: - Multi-modal: LLMs can consume…
Cost as in, cost to you? Or cost to serve? If the cost-to-serve is subsidized by VC money, they aren't getting cheaper, they're just leading you on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe OpenAI can become an advertising company?
Maybe. Did you foresee Google becoming a massively profitable advertising company with a search engine attached in 2004? I certainly didn't.
This is the only question, and the fact it's still an open question just screams "hype bubble". My bet is this AI stuff goes the way of the NFT.
Ed occasionally makes good points, but he's very very angry at Big Tech, and his anger often gets in the way of his message. Reading his latest rant reminds me of Karl Denninger railing against Google around the time of their IPO, claiming they would never make enough money to justify an $85 share price (a $1000 investment then would be worth around $375,000 today).
> And when this all falls apart — and I believe it will — there will be a very public reckoning for the tech industry. and will trigger the collapse of the wider asset price bubble, with consequent economic turmoil - an unfortunately necessary reset, in my opinion. I suppose the good news is that likely the current US administration will wear this one, though not completely being their fault (much like Covid), and a…
To succeed here, AI doesn't have to be cheap or good, it only has to be cheaper than human staff.
This is one of the most tilted pieces I’ve ever read. For months Ed has predicted The AI Bubble will burst “any day now” frequently citing ai company’s revenue as a sign the product is not viable and the valuations are too high. The valuations seem to be primarily based on the R&D progress instead of on a theory that widespread adoption of the existing product will experience an uptick. The current landscape imho sho…
> This is one of the most tilted pieces I’ve ever read. He comes across as just a ludicrously unpleasant, spite-filled person. > I'm fucking tired of having to write this sentence. > I am so very bored of having this conversation > I don't care about this number! > Shut the fuck up! > This isn't the early days of shit . > Didn't we just talk about this? Fine, fine. > $3.25 billion a quarter is absolutely pathetic. >…
I’m a little shocked at how much negativity there is around LLMs among developers. It’s a new tool that requires some learning, and it’s sometimes not so great, but if you’ve used an IDE with real coding assistance built in (eg. VS Code in Edit with Copilot mode - NOT Chat mode, using Claude 3.5), it’s honestly not much worse than a junior dev and 100x faster. And if the code is bad you throw it away and try again 10…
The article is about how the economics of the LLM market is making all tech look bad. They need trillions of dollars in returns. VC's won't finance tech startups for decades. I use Cursor sometimes, and VSCode + Continue with llama.cpp, and it's great. That's not worth billions. It's definitely not worth trillions.
That seems like a suspect claim. If you're saying that you, personally, cannot create billions of dollars in value with Cursor & friends that is certainly true - but you are in no position to make a judgement call about where the cap on value creation is for the LLM market is worth based on your personal use cases. LLMs don't just do code completion. We really can't estimate how much potential value is being created without doing some serious data diving and studying of cases.
A better argument would be that the DeepSeek experience suggests these companies have no moat and therefore no way to earn a return on capital. But LLMs are probably going to generate at least trillions of dollars in value because they're on par or ahead of Wikipedia and Google for answering many queries then they also have hundreds of ancillary uses like answering medical questions at weird hours or creative/professional writing.
Why in the world would you want a car?? They are horrible to maintain, difficult to operate, expensive, smell bad, and are slower than horses! -somebody salty about automobiles, circa 1900.
Tbh they'd have been right. Cars are expensive to buy and to maintain. They are difficult to operate—people die every day. They do smell bad, and the particulate matter they emit is extremely bad for you. And they are slow: Traffic is an unsolvable problem in urban centres. Redesigning our cities around cars was one of the big mistakes of the 20th century.
The point isn't to say that new tech is bad, but that there can be adverse consequences to jumping in wholesale.