41–50 of 104 posts
Translation: the LLM gold rush hasn't found gold. You can still make money selling shovels for a few years tho?
Gold was struck, it is just already in the hands of the capitalists. More automation, and no commensurate pay rise for the workers still employed.
My photo editor tool now has a button to automatically remove backgrounds, a cool trick. It's at least more useful than crypto. Chat GPT is a fun party trick, but I'll never trust the output. That's the problem with AI: you can't trust the output. Maybe generative AI is useful for the rich so they can fire even more people in the creative space, generating shareholder value. Let's play a game: what do you think the n…
Look at how quickly after diffusion models released that "looks like AI" became an insult.
An LLM that accelerates the work of a domain expert makes sense to me. A team of post-doc infectious disease researchers using an LLM continuously trained on up-to-date medical research papers and prompted as a sort of digital Watson to their collective Sherlock works because all humans involved are highly trained to filter out the nonsense, the hallucinations, the bullshit. And the LLM doesn't have to be crafted to be obsequious and PR friendly.
But there aren't enough high-level domain experts like that to build a unicorn on. So instead, everyone decided to take these LLMs and push them on the general public. And you might think I'm going to say the general public isn't capable of learning the domain enough to separate the wheat from the chaff, but it's more that they're not willing to. And general purpose startups are building user interfaces where they either expect them to (best case scenario) or pretending they won't have to (worst case and much more common scenario).
Unless that UX problem is solved, there are going to be some very unhappy consumers going forward.
A lot of people complaining about GenAI claim that results that are correct 90% of the time are useless. That, to me, is not true. There are plenty of examples where a 10% incorrect answer is perfectly useful. For example in software with good test harnesses you can trust functions that pass tests whether they are written by staff, an intern or a bot. But I do think that we have an AI bubble and need a brush fire to…
My photo editor tool now has a button to automatically remove backgrounds, a cool trick. It's at least more useful than crypto. Chat GPT is a fun party trick, but I'll never trust the output. That's the problem with AI: you can't trust the output. Maybe generative AI is useful for the rich so they can fire even more people in the creative space, generating shareholder value. Let's play a game: what do you think the n…
GenAI for text and intelligence has hit a wall.
https://archive.is/R5zkq It is relevant to point out that NYT is engaged in a legal battle with OpenAI. This article refers to "AIs like ChatGPT" which clearly shows who it is targeted at. For people thay don't read arxiv every day, the actual advancements are difficult to sift out of all the hype. The dilution of the meaning of AI will contribute to the bubble's contraction when the general public realises that "AI"…
> It is relevant to point out that NYT is engaged in a legal battle with OpenAI. The article is from WSJ
"The company’s recent demo of its voice-powered features led to a 22% one-day jump in mobile subscriptions, according to analytics firm Appfigures." That's an interesting figure, especially given that most of the exciting features in that demo (video analysis, the new voice input/output, improved image generation) are actually available to paying users yet.
If you haven't read carefully the release announcement it hasn't been communicated clearly.
Technology revolution means different thing to different people - technological change, consumer benefit - investing opportunity. If you compare to internet revolution consumer benefit increased steadily, but as a general investment category it was total bust. During the internet revolution, Top 5 internet companies were Yahoo.com, AOL.com, Geocities.com, MSN.com, and Lycos.com. It took almost 10 years to Amazon stoc…
Finance world looks at the consumer benefit as an interesting feature of the investment opportunity, while the technology world looks at the investment opportunity as an interesting feature of the technology change and consumer benefit.
The two communities will talk right past each other like they’re speaking different languages.
I don't believe it, even though I'd like to. I don't really care much for the technology because of its societal impact. I am a bit surprised that it hasn't been more weaponized yet for elections and wars. But it will be, no doubt about it.
We likely won't see much from them until we suddenly have fighter jets flown by AI in the battlefield and autonomous systems handling at least a portion of the weapons targeting process.
I don't believe it, even though I'd like to. I don't really care much for the technology because of its societal impact. I am a bit surprised that it hasn't been more weaponized yet for elections and wars. But it will be, no doubt about it.
At a less subtle level, AI is deciding right now whose apartments should be bombed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39918245
“What’s there to do really?” they asked. Whatever annoyance somebody had with the state of the early web was magnified into a portrait of decline.
It was only for nerds. Or maybe too shallow with ugly amateur content. Or too commercialized already. Or maybe it was never going to be a successful platform for business because nobody is crazy enough to put their credit card number in an online form. Etc.
These contradictory complaints were all present back in the day, but in retrospect there was so much room for both technical and social growth that they just seem quaint now.