91–100 of 228 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People said the same thing 30 years ago about the internet. I’m spending $400/mo on AI subscriptions at this point. Probably the best money I spend.
And the people who bought a lot of shovels during the gold rush thought they were making the smartest money move
but lots of folks were broke as hell and miserable
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People said the same thing 30 years ago about the internet. I’m spending $400/mo on AI subscriptions at this point. Probably the best money I spend.
that $400/month is essentially the introductory price, subsided in an attempt to grab market share that $400 will go up by at least a factor of 10 once the bubble pops would you be prepared to pay $4000/month?
I doubt that the exponential cost explosion day is coming. When the bubble pops, the bankruptcies of many of the players will push the costs down. US policy has provided a powerful incentive for Chinese players to do what Google has done and have a lower cost delivery model anyway.
For 96% of the population, AI will not boost production. Generally speaking people are too stupid to use AI properly at least for awhile.
I really hate condascending and arrogant stuff like "Generally speaking people are too stupid to use AI properly at least for awhile". There are plenty of tech illiterate people that are far from being "stupid" and they might not care about or like AI. They just need to send emails to family, share photos and videos and have a video call from time to time. For them, AI is worthless. But they aren't stupid. You sound…
That's the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
how is it hallucinating links? The links are direct links to the webpage that they vectorized or whatever as input to the LLM query. In fact, on almost all LLM responses DuckDuckGo and Google, the links are right there as sited sources that you click on (i know because I'm almost always clicking on the source link to read the original details, and not the made up one
I would imagine links can be hallucinated because the original URLs in the training data get broken up into tokens - so it's not hard to come up with a URL that has the right format (say https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.01234 - which is a real paper but I just made up that URL) and a plausible-sounding title.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Similar to my thoughts. If we are still scrambling to find stuff the average Joe finds useful, the 100s of Billions poured into this gold rush are wasted (IMHO).
This reminds me of the early 1980s, when home PCs were still very new, the main use cases that vendors used to promote were managing household accounts and recipes. These use cases were extremely unimpressive for most ordinary people. It took a long time for PCs to become ubiquitous in homes - until gaming and the web became common.
Consumer adoption also happened organically over time, catalyzed mostly by email and instant messaging, which were huge technological leaps over fax and snail mail. IBM and DEC didn't have to jam "Internet" buttons all over their operating systems to juice usage (although AOL certainly contributed to filling landfills with their free trial disks).
LLMs and their capabilities are very impressive and definitely useful. The productivity gains often seem to be smaller than intuitively expected though. For example, using ChatGPT to get a response to a random question like "How do I do XYZ" is much more convenient than googling it, but the time savings are often not that relevant for your overall productivity. Before LLMs you were usually already able to find the in…
I'd even question that. The pre-LLM solutions were in most cases better. Searching a maintained database of curated and checked information is far better than LLM output (which is possibly bullshit).
Ditto to software engineering. In software, we have things call libraries: you write the code once, test it, then you trust it and can use it as many times as you want forever for free. Why use LLM generated code when you have a library? And if you're asking for anything complex, you're probably just getting a plagiarized and bastardized version of some library anyway.
The only thing where LLMs shine is a kind of simple, lazy "mash this up so I don't have to think about it" cases. And sometimes it might be better to just do it yourself and develop your own skills instead of use an LLM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People said the same thing 30 years ago about the internet. I’m spending $400/mo on AI subscriptions at this point. Probably the best money I spend.
And the people who bought a lot of shovels during the gold rush thought they were making the smartest money move
I'd say for an estate that I am the executor of, it probably saved me $50k in legal fees and other expenses because it helped me analyze a novel problem and organize it ask the right questions of counsel.
Another scenario i had to deal with i needed a mobile app to do something very specific for a few weeks. I specced out a very narrowly useful iphone application, built it out on the train from DC to NYC, and had it working to my satisfaction the next day. Is it production code ready for primetime? Absolutely not. But I got capability to do what I needed super quickly that my skill level is no longer up to the task to accomplish!
IMO, these things let you make power tools, but your ability to get value is capped by your ability to ask the right questions. In the enterprise, they are going to kill lots of stupid legacy software that doesn't add alot of value, but adds alot of cost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Similar to my thoughts. If we are still scrambling to find stuff the average Joe finds useful, the 100s of Billions poured into this gold rush are wasted (IMHO).
This reminds me of the early 1980s, when home PCs were still very new, the main use cases that vendors used to promote were managing household accounts and recipes. These use cases were extremely unimpressive for most ordinary people. It took a long time for PCs to become ubiquitous in homes - until gaming and the web became common.
LLMs and their capabilities are very impressive and definitely useful. The productivity gains often seem to be smaller than intuitively expected though. For example, using ChatGPT to get a response to a random question like "How do I do XYZ" is much more convenient than googling it, but the time savings are often not that relevant for your overall productivity. Before LLMs you were usually already able to find the in…
I use ChatGPT “thinking” mode as a way to run multiple searches and summarize the results. It takes some time, but I can do other stuff in another tab and come back. It’s for queries that are unlikely to be satisfied in a single search. I don’t think it would be a negligible amount of time if you did it yourself.
I let Claude and ChatGPT type out code for me, while I focus on my research
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would imagine links can be hallucinated because the original URLs in the training data get broken up into tokens - so it's not hard to come up with a URL that has the right format (say https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.01234 - which is a real paper but I just made up that URL) and a plausible-sounding title.
Yeah, but the current state of ChatGPT doesn’t really do this. The comment you’re replying to explains why URLs from ChatGPT generally aren’t constructed from raw tokens.