And this absolutely will not change the course of AI investment whatsoever because it still driving a huge amount of profit.
The only thing that will finally change the course of AI investment is when the bubble finally burst which will cause the collapse of our economy because, by that point, so much money will have been invested in it. There will be no other possible result.
And why? Because these assholes only care about one thing: short term results at any cost.
61If AI is a trillion dollar investment, what trillion dollar problem is it solving?
Why, the trillion dollars not yet in the pockets of the companies that think they can take advantage of AI of course.
The naked truth is that #4 answers #1. The biggest utility AI might provide would be replacing paid workers. That's a trillion dollar problem if your ultimate goal is to hoard wealth and sit atop the highest pile of gold like a dragon.
So again, we have a solution to a problem only the wealthy elite have, being marketed as an advancement for the greater good of society, to justify stealing the massive resources it consumes, in order to not have to pay that directly to their workers.
Capitalism.
37AI will get better
Aren't LLM already pretty much out of (past) training data? Like, they've already chewed through Reddit/Facebook etc and are now caught up to current posts. Of course people will continue talking online and they'll continue to use it to train AI. But if devouring decades of human data, basically everything online, resulted in models that hallucinate, lie to us, and regurgitate troll posts, how can it reach the exponential improvement they promise us!? It already has all the data, has been trained on it, and the average person still sees no value in it...
25This is all true if you take a tiny portion of what AI is and does (like generative AI) and try to extrapolate that to all of AI.
AI is a vast field. There are a huge number of NP-hard problems that AI is really really good at.
If you can reasonably define your problem in terms of some metric and your problem space has a lot of interdependencies, there's a good chance AI is the best and possibly only (realistic) way to address it.
Generative AI has gotten all the hype because it looks cool. It's seen as a big investment because it's really expensive. A lot of the practical AI is for things like automated calibration. It's objectively useful and not that expensive to train.
9The AI makes the art. The art is made into an NFT. The NFT goes on the blockchain. We all get rich. Climate is saved. End of story. How are people not getting this??? 😂😭
9Ok but point 4 is a bit too based for GS.
Tho I have been arguing that at some point ("voluntary") consumption just collapses over average sentiment. Eg over bad living and working conditions, or just a hopelessly depressive environment (like, I don't wanna buy slave chocolate).6AI solves a goal that capital is attracted to though. When AI is the gatekeeper to most data it will further entrench the power and capital of those who own it. That is why there is such an investment race. AI isn't going to be great for humanity and will eventually be used to exploit humanity, but it's going to be fucking amazing for giant corporation profits in the long run.
4The answer to question 1, to me, seems to be that it is promising to replace workforce acrossamy fields. This idea makes investors and Capitalists (capital C, the people who have and want to keep the money) drool. AI promises to do jobs without needing a paycheck.
I'm not saying I believe it will deliver. I'm saying it is being promised, or at least implied. Therefore, I agree, there's a lot of grift happening. Just like crypto and NFTs, grift grift grift.
4Use it to replace Congress, SCOTUS, POTUS, CEOs, Executives, Judges. Fair and impartial. And cheaper.
3Point 2 and 3 are legit, especially the part about not having a roadmap, a lot of what's going on is pure improvisation at this point and trying different things to see what sticks. The grid is a problem but fixing it is long over due. In any case, these companies will just build their own if the government can't get its head out of it's ass and start fixing the problem (Microsoft is already doing this).
The last two point specifically point to this person being someone that doesn't know the technology just like what they are accusing others of being.
It's already replacing people. You don't need it to do all the work, it will still bring about layoffs if it gives the ability for one person to do the job of 5. It's already affecting jobs like concept artist and every website that used to have someone at the end of their chat app now has an LLM. This is also only the start, it's the equivalent of people thinking computers won't affect the workforce in the early 90s. It won't hold up for long.
The data point is also quit a bold statement. Anyone keeping abreast with the technology knows that it's now about curating the datasets and not augmenting them. There's also a paper that comes out everyday about new training strategies which is helping a lot more than a few extra shit posts from Reddit.
3I can answer one of these criticisms regarding innovation: AI is incredibly inefficient at what it does. From training to execution, it's but a fraction as efficient as it could be. For this reason most of the innovation going on in AI right now is related to improving efficiency.
We've already had massive improvements to things like AI image generation (e.g. SDXL Turbo which can generate an image in 1 second instead of 10) and there's new LLMs coming out all the time that are a fraction of the size of their predecessors, use a fraction of the computing power, and yet perform better for most use cases.
There's other innovations that have the potential to reduce the power requirements by factors of one thousand to millions such as ternary training and execution. If ternary AI models turn out to be workable in the real-world (I see no reason why they couldn't) we'll be able to get the equivalent of ChatGPT 4 running locally on our phones and it won't even be a blip on the radar from a battery life perspective nor will it require more powerful CPUs/GPUs.
2As usual a critic of novel tech gets some things right and some things wrong, but overall not bad. Trying to build a critic of LLMs where your understanding is based on a cartoon representation skipping the technical details about what is novel about the approach and only judging based on how commercial products are using it can be an overly narrow lens to what it can be, but isn't too far off from what it is.
I suspect LLMs or something like them will be a part of something approaching AGI, and the good part is once the tech exists you don't have to reinvent it and can test it's boundaries and how it would integrate with other systems, but if that is 1%, 5%, or 80% of an overall solution is unknown.
1- Labor
- There are a lot of improvements in the making. Agents, memory, self-improvement. It's a young technology.
- Currently AI is not good enough to replace people. It's good enough to improve productivity and will probably get better at that. This will be the reason why many people loose their jobs - there might be human level AI in the future but that's hard to predict.
- Build more power plants. This is already happening. A problem but not a impossible one.
- That is just plain wrong. Try different models and get different results. What the future will bring is hard to predict but artificial data or self improving models might be the solution to the data problem. Time will tell.
-2If AI is a trillion dollar investment, what trillion dollar problem is it solving?
If you could increase the productivity of knowledge-workers 5%, that's worth a trillion
- AI won't work because of the American power grid
Makes no sense. Why would one random country having an underdeveloped power grid stymie AI?
I'm not an AI gal, but those are obvious bad points.
-10
