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

Artificial intelligence is losing hype

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

731–740 of 814 posts

Re: Artificial intelligence is losing hype

#731

Post by throwaway4aday »

SoftTalker wrote: post #680
throwaway4aday wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's an experiment you can try, go to https://www.udio.com/home and grab a free account which comes with more than enough credits to do this. Use a free chat LLM like Claude 3.5 Sonnet or ChatGPT 4o to workshop some lyrics that you like, just try a few generations and ask it to rewrite parts you don't like until you have something that you don't find too cringe. Then go back over to Udio, go to the create tab turn…

The ride to what? The place where human musicians can't earn a living because they can't live on less than what it costs to have an AI regurgitate the melodic patterns, chord progressions, and other music theory it has learned? This benefits who, exactly? It's a race to the bottom. Who is going to pay anything for music that can be generated basically for free? Who is going to go to a concert or festival to listen to…

It sounds like you're arguing with yourself. You provide exactly the reasons why generative AI isn't going to take us to a "place where human musicians can't earn a living". It's my understanding that most small bands primarily earn their money from live performances and merchandise, gen AI isn't going to compete with them there, if anything it'll make it much easier for them to create their own merch or at least the initial designs for it.

AI generated music is more of a threat to the current state of the recording industry. If I can create exactly the album or playlist that I want using AI then why should I pay a record label for a recording that they're going to take 90% of the retail price from? The playlist I listen to while I'm working out or driving is not competing with live band performances, I'm still going to go to a show if there's a band playing that I like.

Re: Artificial intelligence is losing hype

#732

Post by Rinzler89 »

randomdata wrote: post #712
Rinzler89 wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good programmer isn't necessarily also good at business to run his own company. Sure, you have your John Carmaks' or Antirezs' of the industry who are 10x programmers and also successful founders but those guys are 1 in a million. But your usual 10x engineer you'll meet is the guy who knows the ins and outs of all running systems at work giving him the ability to debug and solve issues 10x quicker than the rest, kn…

> But your usual 10x engineer you'll meet is the guy who knows the ins and outs of all running systems at work giving him the ability to debug and solve issues 10x quicker than the rest You're talking about the 100x engineer now. The 10x engineer is the normal engineer you are probably accustomed to working with. When you encounter a 1x engineer, you will be shocked at how slow and unproductive they are.

>When you encounter a 1x engineer, you will be shocked at how slow and unproductive they are.

Well, Of Course I Encountered Him. He's Me.

Re: Artificial intelligence is losing hype

#733

Post by randomdata »

Rinzler89 wrote: post #732
randomdata wrote: post #712

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But your usual 10x engineer you'll meet is the guy who knows the ins and outs of all running systems at work giving him the ability to debug and solve issues 10x quicker than the rest You're talking about the 100x engineer now. The 10x engineer is the normal engineer you are probably accustomed to working with. When you encounter a 1x engineer, you will be shocked at how slow and unproductive they are.

>When you encounter a 1x engineer, you will be shocked at how slow and unproductive they are. Well, Of Course I Encountered Him. He's Me.

Unlikely, given that you see the 100x engineer as being only a 10x level up.

Re: Artificial intelligence is losing hype

#734

Post by SoftTalker »

throwaway4aday wrote: post #731
SoftTalker wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ride to what? The place where human musicians can't earn a living because they can't live on less than what it costs to have an AI regurgitate the melodic patterns, chord progressions, and other music theory it has learned? This benefits who, exactly? It's a race to the bottom. Who is going to pay anything for music that can be generated basically for free? Who is going to go to a concert or festival to listen to…

It sounds like you're arguing with yourself. You provide exactly the reasons why generative AI isn't going to take us to a "place where human musicians can't earn a living". It's my understanding that most small bands primarily earn their money from live performances and merchandise, gen AI isn't going to compete with them there, if anything it'll make it much easier for them to create their own merch or at least the…

Yeah I didn't really state that very well. My point was mostly what you say: because people are fans of artists, and because AI music is/will be essentially free to produce, AI music isn't something that will make money for anyone, unless it's the default way anything online makes money: ads are injected into it. I'm not going to pay for it. I'm not going to buy merchandise, or go to concerts, or do anything a music fan does and pays money for. I'm not even going to put it in a workout playlist, because I can just as easily make a playlist of real human artists that I like.

I disagree that it's a threat to the recording industry. They aren't going to be able to sell AI music, but nobody else is either, because anyone who wants AI music can just create it themselves. Record labels will continue to sell and promote real artists, because that's how they can make money. That's what people will pay for.

Re: Artificial intelligence is losing hype

#735

Post by pennomi »

ardaoweo wrote: post #674
cdelsolar wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think you’ve used LLMs enough. They are revolutionary, every day. As a coder I’m several times more productive than I was before, especially when trying to learn some new library or language.

They are revolutionary for use cases where hallucinated / wrong / unreliable output is easy and cheap to detect & fix, and where there's enough training data. That's why it fits programming so well - if you get bad code, you just throw it away, or modify it until it works. That's why it work for generic stock images too - if you get bad image, you modify the prompt, generate another one and see if it's better. But ma…

A product doesn’t have to be useful for everything to still be useful.

Re: Artificial intelligence is losing hype

#736

Post by jgalt212 »

futureshock wrote: post #554

This should really be retitled to “The AI investment bubble is losing hype.” LLMs as they exist today will slowly work their way into new products and use cases. They are an important new capability and one that will change how we do certain tasks. But as to the hype, we are in a brief pause before the election where no company wants to release anything that would hit the news cycle in a bad way and cause knee-jerk l…

> The AI investment bubble is losing hype

I disagree. Palantir is trading at 200X earnings.

Re: Artificial intelligence is losing hype

#737

Post by splitstud »

kybernetyk wrote: post #701
myrmidon wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very helpful in providing highly specific "boilerplate" in languages/environments you are not very familiar with. The text interface can also be useful for skipping across complex documentation and/or learning. Example: you can ask GPT-4 to "decode 0xdf 0xf8 0x44 0xd0 (thumb 2 assembly for arm cortex-m)" => this will tell you what instruction is encoded, what it does and even how to cajole your toolchain into p…

> this will tell you what instruction is encoded, what it does and even how to cajole your toolchain into providing that same information. or it will hallucinate something that's completely wrong but you won't notice it

[dead]

Re: Artificial intelligence is losing hype

#738

Post by iluvcommunism »

jlarocco wrote: post #362
iluvcommunism wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used it for some troubleshooting in my job. Linux Sys Admin. I like how I can just ask it a question and explain the situation and it goes thru everything with me, like a Person.

How worried are you that it's giving you bad advice? There are plenty of, "Just disable certificate checking" type answers on Stack Overflow, but there are also a lot of comments calling them out. How do you fact check the AI? Is it just a shortcut to finding better documentation?

In my opinion it’s better at filtering down my convoluted explanation into some troubleshooting steps I can take, to investigate. It’s kind of like an evolved Google algorithm, boiling down the internet’s knowledge. And I’ve had it give me step by step instructions on “esoteric” things like dwm config file examples, plugins for displaying pictures in terminal, what files to edit and where…it’s kind of efficient I think. Better than browsing ads. Lol.

Re: Artificial intelligence is losing hype

#739

Post by danielmarkbruce »

kaoD wrote: post #514
MaybiusStrip wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spend, not lose. And it's mostly on training, not inference.

They would need 250 million GPT Plus $20 subscribers to recoup a $5 billion expense. They're far from that even when we count the free users (which are likely 99% of the user base?) The math just doesn't work. They're hemorrhaging money as far as I can tell (not counting the Azure computing deal). We can only guess, but my guess is that inference is still a good chunk of their costs. That's why they're trying to get…

Redo the math....

Re: Artificial intelligence is losing hype

#740

Post by [deleted] »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #739
kaoD wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They would need 250 million GPT Plus $20 subscribers to recoup a $5 billion expense. They're far from that even when we count the free users (which are likely 99% of the user base?) The math just doesn't work. They're hemorrhaging money as far as I can tell (not counting the Azure computing deal). We can only guess, but my guess is that inference is still a good chunk of their costs. That's why they're trying to get…

Redo the math....

[deleted]
Post reply on HN