51–60 of 66 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Painting opposition as "sour grapes" is an extraordinarily bad faith take.
I dont want to be sold ai girlfriends If that makes me a sour grape, so be it.
At least those are not directly harmful to me.
I'm slightly less fine when my time is wasted by some generated bullshit.
And not at all fine when some vibed some product and ignored basic good practises on security and so on.
I'm not saying AI is living up to the "hype" or "expectations" - it would largely depend on how you quantify the hype or expectations. Most rational would be to consider how much money is funneled into vs how much ROI would it have within some time range in the future, e.g. 10 years. A wise investor would look ahead 10 years, balance benefits, potential and risks. By that metric it could be too early to say if it's p…
Time is ticking and running out. You do realise future numbers have to be discounted heavily for the required rate of return given the risk, right? This means the free cash flow to the firm OAI generates will have to be huge, given the negative cash outflows to date.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have seen 30 years of human fuckups, it is infinitely worse than AI fuck ups so you are right, cannot be compared, humans are so much worse there are roughly 2.09% of SWEs that actually know what they are doing so this 97.91% generally prodces garbage (after 30 years doing this shit I have once experiencing being brought it to a project (I have been working as a consultant for a long time now) and went “wow, now th…
You have to look at where the bullet holes aren't on surviving planes to know where to reinforce them... aka you don't maybe think tha - as an outside consultant - the nature of the job means you'd rarely be brought in to fix "beautiful codebases"...?
I probably worked with 300-400 SWEs directly and of them there is only one I’d trust to write code if my life depended on it. and I think that is likely in-line with how many SWEs are actually great at their jobs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what your point is, but I do absolutely think that getting proper toilet paper offers 50x returns and everyone should prioritize it.
The point is, the above logic depends on the part about "1 million" and "1 billion", that is, it assumes a thousand times profit for the 5% of companies that succeed in getting productivity improvements from AI or toilet paper. Eh, but I guess TP is cheap, so maybe you're going along with that.
To prove, that AI is a overhyped bubble and won't bring in the ROI expected, you'd need to show that these companies won't bring expected ROI within a longer timeframe.
I'm not saying AI is living up to the "hype" or "expectations" - it would largely depend on how you quantify the hype or expectations. Most rational would be to consider how much money is funneled into vs how much ROI would it have within some time range in the future, e.g. 10 years. A wise investor would look ahead 10 years, balance benefits, potential and risks. By that metric it could be too early to say if it's p…
What if switching to 3 ply toilet paper (from the dreaded 1 ply) in employee bathrooms increased productivity in 5% of companies. We could also apply the same logic that these 5% could also produce 50x returns.
I'm not saying AI is living up to the "hype" or "expectations" - it would largely depend on how you quantify the hype or expectations. Most rational would be to consider how much money is funneled into vs how much ROI would it have within some time range in the future, e.g. 10 years. A wise investor would look ahead 10 years, balance benefits, potential and risks. By that metric it could be too early to say if it's p…
5% succeeding is abysmal for an industry where a trillion dollars or more is invested in. And that’s ignoring the rampant copyright infringement, the exploding power use and accompanying increase in climate change, the harm it already does to people who are incapable of dealing with a sycophantic lying machine, the huge amounts of extremely low quality text and code and social media clips it produces. Oh and the furt…
AI (LLM) is useful for coding and I use it to lookup various articles or websites and summarize. Use it where it works.. ignore the agents hype and other bullshit peddled by 19yo dropouts. Unlike the 19yo dropouts of the 2010s these guys have brain rot and I don’t trust them after having talked to such people at start up events and getting their black pill takes. They have products that don’t work and lie about numbe…
LLMs are not useful for coding in any real world project. That people keep repeating a lie does not make it true.
… Excuse me, they were doing _what_? The world has gone mad. Unless you think a chatbot that doesn’t know how many ‘r’s are in strawberry is your peer you shouldn’t be using it for peer review, bloody hell.
At least in tech there’s still usually human code review which catches the worst of the magic robot-generated nonsense.
I find these sorts of takes to be tiresome. It is absolutely true there is a lot of hype around AI. Also it is true that many AI companies try to shove AI into everything without necessarily thinking wherer it is a good idea or whether it useful (talking to you Google). Notwithstanding this it is absolutely clear how transformational the technology is. For low skill tasks it can certainly substitute people and save a…
I mean, per the article, only if you don’t care about correctness. There aren’t actually that many use cases where correctness doesn’t matter at all.
AI creates the most spectacular happy path demos. It’s hard not to extrapolate to infinity when you see it.