91–100 of 531 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Where's the business value? " Have you ever used an LLM? I use it every day to help me with research and completing technical reports (which used to be a lot more of my time). Of course you can't just use it blindly, but it definitely adds value.
Does it bring more value than it cost ? That's the real question. Nobody doubt it works, everybody doubt Altboy when he asks $7 trillion
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> adoption is low to nonexistent outside of programming Odd way to describe ChatGPT which has >1B users. AI overviews have rolled out to ~3B users, Gemini has ~200M users, etc. Adoption is far from low.
Mostly agreed, but AI overviews are a very bad example. Google can just force feed its massive search user base whatever bullshit it damn pleases. Even if it has negative value to the users. I don't actually think that AI overviews have "negative value" - they have their utility. There are cases where I stop my search right after reading the "AI overview". But "organic" adoption of ChatGPT or Claude or even Gemini an…
He has not engaged with any chatbot, but he thinks of himself as "using AI now" and thinks of it as a value-add.
Perhaps worth remembering that 'over-enthusiasm' for new technologies dates back to (at least) canal-mania: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_Revolutions_and_... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_Mania
The most frustrating thing to me about this most recent rash of biz guy doubting the future of AI articles is the required mention that AI, specifically an LLM based approach to AGI, is important even if the numbers don't make sense today. Why is that the case? There's plenty of people in the field who have made convincing arguments that it's a dead end and fundamentally we'll need to do something else to achieve AGI…
[even in programming it's inconclusive as to how much better/worse it makes programmers.] Try building something new in claude code (or codex etc) using a programming language you have not used before. Your opinion might change drastically. Current AI tools may not beat the best programmer, they definitely improves average programmer efficiency.
It reminds me what I said to somebody recently: All my friends and family are using the free version of ChatGPT or something similar. They will never pay (although they have enough money to do so). Even in my very narrow subjective circles it does not add up. Who pays for AI and how? And when in the future?
The definition is that the assets are valuated above an intrinsic value.
The first graph is Amazon, Meta, Google, Microsoft, and Oracle. Lets check their PE ratio.
Amazon (AMZN) ~ 33.6
Meta (META) ~ 27.5
Google (GOOGL) ~ 25.7
Microsoft (MSFT) ~ 37.9
Oracle (ORCL) ~ 65
These are highish pe ratios, but certainly very far from bubble numbers. OpenAI and others are all private.
Objectively there is no bubble. Economic bubble territory is 100-200+ PE ratios.
Not to mention, who are you to think the top tech companies arent fully aware of the risks they are taking with AI?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where's the business value? Right now it doesn't really exist, adoption is low to nonexistent outside of programming and even in programming it's inconclusive as to how much better/worse it makes programmers. I have a friend who works at PwC doing M&A. This friend told me she can't work without ChatGPT anymore. PwC has an internal AI chat implementation. Where does this notion that LLMs have no value outside of progr…
The recent MIT report on the state of AI in business feels relevant here [0]: > Despite $30–40 billion in enterprise investment into GenAI, this report uncovers a surprising result in that 95% of organizations are getting zero return. There's no doubt that you'll find anecdotal evidence both for and against in all variations, what's much more interesting than anecdotes is the aggregate. [0] https://mlq.ai/media/quart…
I also think it's true that AI is nowhere near AGI level. It's definitely not currently capable of doing my job, not by a long shot.
I also think that, throwing trillions of dollars at AI for a "a better google search, code snippet generator, and obscure bug finder" is a contentious question, and a lot of people oppose it for that reason.
I personally still think it's kind of crazy we have a technology to do things that we didn't have just ~2 years before, even if it just stagnates right here. Still going to be using it every day, even if I admittedly hate a lot of parts of it (for example, "thinking models" get stuck in local minima way too quickly).
At the same time, don't know if it's worth trillions of dollars, at least right now.
So all claims on this thread can be very much true at the same time, just depends on your perspective.
> Some people think artificial intelligence will be the most important technology of the 21st century. I don’t, I think a workable fusion reactor will be the most important technology of the 21st century.
Deepmind are working on solving the plasma control issue at the moment, I suspect they're probably using a bit of AI.... and I wouldn't put it past them to crack it.
People equating AI with other single-problem-solving technologies are clearly not seeing the bigger picture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where's the business value? Right now it doesn't really exist, adoption is low to nonexistent outside of programming and even in programming it's inconclusive as to how much better/worse it makes programmers. I have a friend who works at PwC doing M&A. This friend told me she can't work without ChatGPT anymore. PwC has an internal AI chat implementation. Where does this notion that LLMs have no value outside of progr…
The recent MIT report on the state of AI in business feels relevant here [0]: > Despite $30–40 billion in enterprise investment into GenAI, this report uncovers a surprising result in that 95% of organizations are getting zero return. There's no doubt that you'll find anecdotal evidence both for and against in all variations, what's much more interesting than anecdotes is the aggregate. [0] https://mlq.ai/media/quart…
The most frustrating thing to me about this most recent rash of biz guy doubting the future of AI articles is the required mention that AI, specifically an LLM based approach to AGI, is important even if the numbers don't make sense today. Why is that the case? There's plenty of people in the field who have made convincing arguments that it's a dead end and fundamentally we'll need to do something else to achieve AGI…
It's silly to say that the only objective that will vindicate AI investments is AGI. Current batch of deep learning models are fundamentally a technology for labor automation. This is immensely useful in itself, without the need to do AGI. The Sora2 capabilities are absolutely wild (see a great example here of what non-professional users are already able to create with it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXp8_w3XzgU…