This feels like classic Hype Cycle content: the higher we peak on Inflated Expectations the lower we'll find ourselves on the Trough of Disillusionment.
Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research
51–60 of 164 posts
Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research
#52The first steam engines were also written off as being less powerful than a horse. The first electric motors were written off as being less powerful than steam engines. So it goes. I think both of these views can be true at the same time: ChatGPT (or, LLMs really) are revolutionary and they won't revolutionize the world the way technologists/researchers say. Early adopters will use the technology and do amazing thing…
[deleted]
Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research
#53As the hype phase has passed (probably), now we will see a bit of overcorrection with these dismissive articles. Sure, LLMs as they are now aren't anywhere close to true AGI and even Microsoft admitted it. But its potential is not something anyone can ignore. The capabilities of LLMs has already been successfully used by millions of people and startups. It is a groundbreaking improvement that makes at least one field…
> It captured attentions of both corporations and government who are pouring billions into it. All of this in the span of one year or less.
Corporations and governments have thrown tons of money into technologies that ended up going nowhere. We're only a few years out from everyone dumping their money into "blockchain solutions", which turned out to go nowhere.
Investors and government stakeholders are easily swayed by hype. Sometimes this hype is well placed, but often the hype results in throwing money at projects that don't produce anything of value. Hype just isn't a good measure of a technology's long term viability.
Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research
#5414 Reasons why ChatGPT is only the beginning of AI. ...Twitter right now
I banned 2-3 of these twisticles (twitter listicles) from my feed. The fact that I follow the AI researches doesn't mean I want this spam.
Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
A more modern example is the first iPhone, the first gen was bad even by the standards of the day. If you look passed the novelty of having a lightsaber app on your phone it was terrible.
What? Safari on your phone was mind blowing and immediately useful. Also apps weren’t part of the original iPhone.
> Also apps weren’t part of the original iPhone.
So it was even worse than I remember.
Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research
#56This article is from March 2023, which in LLM terms is pretty old! The "How many bears have the Russians sent into space?" question still returns hallucinations with ChatGPT 3.5 but, unsurprisingly, gets a correct answer from GPT-4.
But is it because GPT-4 is better, or because the owners have hand tuned the public embarrassing examples out by hand?
Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use it almost on a daily basis now, and I pay for the monthly subscription. It’s not magic, but it can save me a lot of time sometimes. I use it in my job as a software engineer, and I mostly use it to create unit tests. The code usually needs a lot of love, but it gets me started.
Copilot and chatgpt are some of the services i am perfectly content paying for. ChatGPT is a great way to delve into new topics, and for that alone it’s worth it.
Copilot Chat will probably be something you’ll like. Have you used it? There is a waitlist.
Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research
#58Sure, anyone that uses ChatGPT knows it's currently not perfect. But there's a presumption that these tools are going to keep improving over time. Which is presumably why the AI hype is so strong. Whether AI ends up displacing people from their jobs in the long term, well, that's impossible to know. Just because no technological advancement has ever done that in the past doesn't mean it will never happen in the futur…
It’s not the first time we’ve been here , either, with AI although t this time it’s a bit more in the public , ie retail sphere. There are people who will confidently tell you that LLM are the next transistor level invention, and people who will tell you it’s more incremental, like eg an electric pressure cooker - improvement in some ways over what came before, got lots of people using them, but not fundamental. I’m sure there is a better example.
Anyway, the truth is nobody actually knows at this point .
Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research
#59The first steam engines were also written off as being less powerful than a horse. The first electric motors were written off as being less powerful than steam engines. So it goes. I think both of these views can be true at the same time: ChatGPT (or, LLMs really) are revolutionary and they won't revolutionize the world the way technologists/researchers say. Early adopters will use the technology and do amazing thing…
Don’t forget the infamous remark from the Slashdot mod about the first iPod, “No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.” https://slashdot.org/story/21026
they weren't wrong...
Re: Don't believe the hype: why ChatGPT is not the “holy grail” of AI research
#60The first steam engines were also written off as being less powerful than a horse. The first electric motors were written off as being less powerful than steam engines. So it goes. I think both of these views can be true at the same time: ChatGPT (or, LLMs really) are revolutionary and they won't revolutionize the world the way technologists/researchers say. Early adopters will use the technology and do amazing thing…
A more modern example is the first iPhone, the first gen was bad even by the standards of the day. If you look passed the novelty of having a lightsaber app on your phone it was terrible.
the worst was it was ATT only and they had a coverage hole on the block where I lived so I had to get rid of it for something supported by verizon. didn't go back to an iphone until 10 years later.