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

How the AI Bubble Will Pop

derekthompson.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 531 posts

Re: How the AI Bubble Will Pop

#171

Post by ____mr____ »

maeln wrote: post #142
cornholio wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's silly to say that the only objective that will vindicate AI investments is AGI. Current batch of deep learning models are fundamentally a technology for labor automation. This is immensely useful in itself, without the need to do AGI. The Sora2 capabilities are absolutely wild (see a great example here of what non-professional users are already able to create with it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXp8_w3XzgU…

> Current batch of deep learning models are fundamentally a technology for labor automation. This is immensely useful in itself, without the need to do AGI. The Sora2 capabilities are absolutely wild (see a great example here of what non-professional users are already able to create with it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXp8_w3XzgU ) > So only looking at video capabilities, or at coding capabilities, it's already…

> They might replace the bottom of the barrel of social media posting (hello cute puppy videos)

Lay off. Only respite I get from this hell world is cute Rottweiler videos

Re: How the AI Bubble Will Pop

#172

Post by legucy »

hshdhdhj4444 wrote: post #60
aurareturn wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's the business value? Right now it doesn't really exist, adoption is low to nonexistent outside of programming and even in programming it's inconclusive as to how much better/worse it makes programmers. I have a friend who works at PwC doing M&A. This friend told me she can't work without ChatGPT anymore. PwC has an internal AI chat implementation. Where does this notion that LLMs have no value outside of progr…

> This friend told me she can't work without ChatGPT anymore. Is she more productive though? People who smoke cigarettes will be unable to work without their regular smoke breaks. Doesn’t mean smoking cigarettes is good for working. Personally I am an AI booster and I think even LLMs can take us much farther. But people on both sides need to stop accepting claims uncritically.

Cigarettes were/are a pretty lucrative business. It doesn’t matter if it’s better or worse, if it’s as addictive as tobacco, the investors will make back their money.

Re: How the AI Bubble Will Pop

#173

Post by boxed »

xiphias2 wrote: post #147
donatj wrote: post #123

I feel kind of like a Luddite sometimes but I don't understand why EVERYONE is rushing to use AI? I use a couple different agents to help me code, and ChatGPT has largely replaced Google in my everyday use, but I genuinely don't understand the value proposition of every other companies offerings. I really feel like we're in the same "Get it out first, figure out what it is good for later" bubble we had like 7 years a…

Just you switching away from Google is already justifying 1T infrastructure spend. Just think about how much more effective advertisements are going to be when LLMs start to tell you what to buy based on which advertiser gave the most money to the company.

> Just you switching away from Google is already justifying 1T infrastructure spend.

How? OpenAI are LOSING money on every query. Beating Google by losing money isn't really beating Google.

Re: How the AI Bubble Will Pop

#175

Post by eek2121 »

donatj wrote: post #123

I feel kind of like a Luddite sometimes but I don't understand why EVERYONE is rushing to use AI? I use a couple different agents to help me code, and ChatGPT has largely replaced Google in my everyday use, but I genuinely don't understand the value proposition of every other companies offerings. I really feel like we're in the same "Get it out first, figure out what it is good for later" bubble we had like 7 years a…

In my eyes, it'd be cheaper for a company to simply purchase laptops with decent hardware specs, and run the LLMs locally. I've had decent results from various models I've run via LMStudio, and bonus points: It costs nothing and doesn't even use all that much CPU/GPU power.

Just my opinion as a FORMER senior software dev (disabled now).

Re: How the AI Bubble Will Pop

#176

Post by jstummbillig »

lm28469 wrote: post #121
jstummbillig wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are always so fidegty about this stuff — for super understandable reason, to be clear. People not much smarter than anyone else try to reason about numbers that are hard to reason about. But unless you have the actual numbers, I always find it a bit strange to assume that all people involved, who deal with large amounts of money all the time, lost all ability to reason about this thing. Because right now that…

> All the important people at FAANG, all the people at OpenAI/Anthropic, all the investors. It's like asking big pharma if medicine should be less regulated, "all the experts agree", well yeah, their paycheck depends on it. Same reason no one at meta tells Zuck that his metaverse is dogshit and no one wants it, they still spent billions on it. You can't assume everyone is that dumb, but you certainly can assume that…

Again, this is not an argument. I am asking: Why do we assume that we know better and people with far more knowledge and insight would all be wrong?

This is not rhetorical question, I am not looking for a rhetorical answer. What is every important decision maker at all these companies missing?

The point is not that they could not all be wrong, they absolutely could. The point is: Make a good argument. Being a general doomsayer when things get very risky might absolutely make you right but it's not a interesting argument – or any argument at all.

Re: How the AI Bubble Will Pop

#177

Post by emp17344 »

ivape wrote: post #167
emp17344 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand what you’re saying. You know the AI is incapable of reading your mind, right? Can you provide more information?

More information: Use the LLM more until you are convinced. If you are not convinced, use it more. Use it more in absurd ways until you are convinced. Repeat the above until you are convinced.

You haven’t provided more information, you’ve just restated your original claim. Can you provide a specific example of AI “blowing your mind”?

Re: How the AI Bubble Will Pop

#178

Post by camillomiller »

donatj wrote: post #123

I feel kind of like a Luddite sometimes but I don't understand why EVERYONE is rushing to use AI? I use a couple different agents to help me code, and ChatGPT has largely replaced Google in my everyday use, but I genuinely don't understand the value proposition of every other companies offerings. I really feel like we're in the same "Get it out first, figure out what it is good for later" bubble we had like 7 years a…

There is none, zero value. What is the value of Sora 2, if even its creators feel like they have to pack it into a social media app with AI-slop reels? How is that not a testament to how suprisingly andvanced and useless at the same time the technology is?

Re: How the AI Bubble Will Pop

#179

Post by rimunroe »

1123581321 wrote: post #135
freehorse wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the kind of question that takes into account that people thinking that they are more productive does not imply that they actually are. This happens in a wide range of contexts, from AI to drugs.

It isn’t a question asked by people generally suspicious of productivity claims. It’s only asked by LLM skeptics, about LLMs.

That doesn’t seem to me like a good reason to dismiss the question, and especially not that strongly/aggressively. We’re supposed to assume good intentions on this site. I can think of any number of reasons one might feel more productive but in the end not be going much faster. It would be nice to know more about the subject of the question’s experience and what they’re going off of.

Re: How the AI Bubble Will Pop

#180

Post by hemloc_io »

cornholio wrote: post #64
hemloc_io wrote: post #7

The most frustrating thing to me about this most recent rash of biz guy doubting the future of AI articles is the required mention that AI, specifically an LLM based approach to AGI, is important even if the numbers don't make sense today. Why is that the case? There's plenty of people in the field who have made convincing arguments that it's a dead end and fundamentally we'll need to do something else to achieve AGI…

It's silly to say that the only objective that will vindicate AI investments is AGI. Current batch of deep learning models are fundamentally a technology for labor automation. This is immensely useful in itself, without the need to do AGI. The Sora2 capabilities are absolutely wild (see a great example here of what non-professional users are already able to create with it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXp8_w3XzgU…

Regardless of my opinions on if you're correct about this, I'm not an ML expert so who knows, I'd be very happy if we cured cancer so I hope you're correct and the video is a cool demo.

I don't believe the risk vs reward on investing a trillion dollars+ is the same when your thesis changes from "We just need more data/compute and we can automate all white collar work"

to

"If we can build a bunch of simulations and automate testing of them using ML then maybe we can find new drugs" or "automate personalized entertainment"

The move to RL has specifically made me skeptical of the size of the buildout.

Post reply on HN