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…
hindsight is easy, just pick the winners. on top of the ones you mentioned, there's also ATI, Matrox, MCI, Worldcom
The AI Revolution Is Already Losing Steam
61–70 of 104 posts
Re: The AI Revolution Is Already Losing Steam
#62Translation: 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.
https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/2014/from-gongkai-to-open...
Basically, they have a much more loose attitude towards IP. This means that you might not be able to make ALL THE MONEY when you invent something (or, when one of your underpaid employees invents something), but society as a whole benefits.
The system balances itself, as if you make it too unprofitable to invent things, then nobody will do it, but it stops this avalanche effect where only massive companies can make money because they have disproportionately many resources to spend on both R&D and IP defense.
Re: The AI Revolution Is Already Losing Steam
#63- LLM-type AI is becoming a commodity. Everybody's systems seem to be converging on a roughly equal level of performance. This includes the open source systems. So this isn't a high-margin business. They compare electric cars, where there are lots of manufacturers and prices are dropping. That's what success of a technology looks like.
- The economics may not work for ad-supported LLMs as part of search engines. It may cost more to deliver an answer than can be collected in ad revenue. That's a problem for Google and Microsoft. (The cost problem can probably be mitigated by recognizing simple queries and answering them with cheap searches.)
- The AI pure plays are overvalued.
Re: The AI Revolution Is Already Losing Steam
#64My 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…
| That's the problem with AI: you can't trust the output. 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 be…
Perhaps a less known truth: it is difficult building applications that use LLMs in complex ways without a human in the inner loop.
Re: The AI Revolution Is Already Losing Steam
#65I seem to recall reading articles like this in 1997 about the internet. “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…
Why the productivity growth from the internet was so low?
As Robert Solow said “you can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.”
The productivity gains from the internet have been surprisingly small or negligible so far. There was initial surge in productivity growth from 1996-2000, then productivity growth fell back to pre-internet levels.
Re: The AI Revolution Is Already Losing Steam
#66It’s the best demo-able software today that lets the customers’ minds go wild with the possibilities. But then the nuances of human abilities in commercial settings, like call center, become realities and obstacles that the software can’t surmount. Costs rise, productivity not so much, and then legal gets involved and it’s even more costly.
This is the best description of the current state of affairs. But who is going to risk not invest on what could be another possible major breakthrough in 3 to 5 years? Either from a GPT5 or another source? It's not like all the brainpower that left OpenAI recently, suddenly converted to farming... At least load on NVIDIA options....
3 to 5 years is an awful lot of quarters . . .
Re: The AI Revolution Is Already Losing Steam
#67Maybe AI is "losing steam" but this is an opinion column masquerading as news, with one or two quotes (from e.g. noted AI skeptic Gary Marcus) or anecdotes supporting each section. It would be equally possible to collect a series of similar but opposite data points to assert that AI is in fact gaining steam.
Of course it's an opinion column. But how is it masquerading as news? All opinion columns have a central thesis that is supported by facts. This is a thesis about the current state and future of AI. Like any opinion piece, the author chooses facts that support the thesis.
- Nvidia's Revenue and AI Spending: Sequoia says "the industry spent $50 billion on chips from Nvidia to train AI in 2023, but brought in only $3 billion in revenue." - This comes from some Sequoia presentation which it appears was originally cited in an earlier WSJ article and then has been repeated everywhere. It would be nice to see that presentation and the context of this data in that presentation. And yes, this nascent industry in essentially its first year of commercialization brought in less than was invested in anticipation of future growth
- Synthetic Data for Training: "To train next generation AIs, engineers are turning to 'synthetic data,' which is data generated by other AIs. That approach didn’t work to create better self-driving technology for vehicles, and there is plenty of evidence it will be no better for large language models," says Gary Marcus, a cognitive scientist. aka Gary Marcus a noted AI skeptic
- Incremental Gains in AI Models: "AIs like ChatGPT rapidly got better in their early days, but what we’ve seen in the past 14-and-a-half months are only incremental gains," says Marcus. "The truth is, the core capabilities of these systems have either reached a plateau, or at least have slowed down in their improvement." aka Gary Marcus a noted AI skeptic
- Convergence in AI Model Performance: "Further evidence of the slowdown in improvement of AIs can be found in research showing that the gaps between the performance of various AI models are closing. All of the best proprietary AI models are converging on about the same scores on tests of their abilities, and even free, open-source models, like those from Meta and Mistral, are catching up." No citation provided for this "research".
- Commoditization: "A mature technology is one where everyone knows how to build it. Absent profound breakthroughs—which become exceedingly rare—no one has an edge in performance." A broad generalization.
- AI Startups Facing Turmoil: "Some AI startups have already run into turmoil, including Inflection AI—its co-founder and other employees decamped for Microsoft in March. The CEO of Stability AI, which built the popular image-generation AI tool Stable Diffusion, left abruptly in March. Many other AI startups, even well-funded ones, are apparently in talks to sell themselves." People at a couple of start-ups are moving around. Unsourced general claim that unnamed AI startups are looking to sell themselves (is this actually bad news?)
- High Operational Costs: "The bottom line is that for a popular service that relies on generative AI, the costs of running it far exceed the already eye-watering cost of training it... analysts believe delivering AI answers on those searches will eat into the company’s margins." Unsourced "analysts". Would be interesting to see the context of this discussion but also it is not unusual for investment in a new wave of growth to eat into margins initially
- Survey Data on AI Use: "A recent survey conducted by Microsoft and LinkedIn found that three in four white-collar workers now use AI at work. Another survey, from corporate expense-management and tracking company Ramp, shows about a third of companies pay for at least one AI tool, up from 21% a year ago.
This suggests there is a massive gulf between the number of workers who are just playing with AI, and the subset who rely on it and pay for it." Two cherry-picked surveys conducted for marketing purposes jammed together to make an unrelated claim.
- Limited Revenue Growth: "OpenAI doesn’t disclose its annual revenue, but the Financial Times reported in December that it was at least $2 billion, and that the company thought it could double that amount by 2025.
That is still a far cry from the revenue needed to justify OpenAI’s now nearly $90 billion valuation." It is completely normal for the leading edge company showing massive growth in a nascent field to have a huge valuation. It doesn't always work out well for that company but this is expected whether the company is ultimately a success or not and the ability to tap that valuation improves the likelihood of success
- Productivity and Job Replacement: "Evidence suggests AI isn’t nearly the productivity booster it has been touted as, says Peter Cappelli, a professor of management at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. While these systems can help some people do their jobs, they can’t actually replace them." Non-specific "evidence" is cited here.
- Challenges in AI Usage: "AIs still make up fake information, which means they require someone knowledgeable to use them. Also, getting the most out of open-ended chatbots isn’t intuitive, and workers will need significant training and time to adjust." Author assertion
- Historical Patterns in Technology Adoption: "Changing people’s mindsets and habits will be among the biggest barriers to swift adoption of AI. That is a remarkably consistent pattern across the rollout of all new technologies." Author assertion
Re: The AI Revolution Is Already Losing Steam
#68Re: The AI Revolution Is Already Losing Steam
#69My 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…
15 to 20 years ago what we call now "AI" would've been the logical follow up to automation technologies like Apple Automator, IFTTT, node-based visual interfaces. A solid and slightly groundbreaking advancement step in how we use our devices. It would've been a cool 15-minutes long demo on a WWDC and then we would've moved on with our lives, while using it on common, mundane, real-world problems.
But today every technological progression has to be an earth-shattering revolution, and every company needs to become the next multi-billion unicorn carried by a pseudo-messianic leaderships by the likes of Musk, Altman, Holmes or Bankman-Fried. Otherwise you can completely forget those sweet, sweet funding money.
Re: The AI Revolution Is Already Losing Steam
#70I read it a couple of times and I think I figured it out. I'm looking at it as a technologist, while the WSJ is looking at it as an investment opportunity. When they say "losing steam" they mean "there's no alpha left." In other words, the smart money has already moved in, and the future value has already been priced in. This is a really telling quote:
> AI could become a commodity
That is a GOOD thing. It's called the ephemeralization of value[1]. Today, a HD color TV costs less than a black and white TV in 1950's. The WSJ would look at that and see a mere "commodity" because businesses are operating at lower margins and there's less money to be made, but billions of consumers benefit. Open source is the ultimate expression of ephemeralization, and it is inarguably a good thing when billions of people can benefit from state-of-the-art tech for free.
So yeah, maybe it's too late to get rich by investing early. Maybe a lot of the vaporware startups and thin wrappers around OpenAI's API will crash and burn soon. And yes, it's definitely been overhyped in certain regards and pushed into use cases it can't really support by promoters who neither know nor care what about the real capabilities and limitations. All of that in normal adoption curve stuff. The technology is definitely not losing steam; it's barely getting started. If you're a CS student, you 100% should be learning about vectorization, automatic differentiation, and differentiable programming, because the GPU isn't some sort of niche topic you can ignore. We've taken the von Neumann architecture as far as it can go, right up to the quantum limits, and now we have go parallel. These techniques are pointing the way to a simple model of parallelization that can actually take advantage of modern hardware without breaking your brain or getting lost is a maze of locks and semaphores. The "transformer" isn't the end-all-be-all of this paradigm - it just happens to be one technique that worked well in practice on free text data. There's so much more out there waiting to be discovered.