It's only a matter of time 'til the "AI" bubble really pops and all those tech companies that fired too much of their workforce have to start hiring back like crazy.
While there are some bubbles that need popping, especially in board rooms - i work for a large tech company that has not fired anyone because of AI. Rather the opposite, we have been expanding our AI team in the last 5+ years and have delivered succesful AI products. There is a lot more to AI than ChatGPT. Which, while impressive as a proof of concept, is not actually useful to business.
I'm so skeptical that AI will deliver large scale economic value.
The current boom is essentially fueled by free money. VCs pump billions into start-ups, more established companies get billions in subsidies or get their customers to pay outrageous amounts on promises. Yet, I have yet to see a single AI product that is worth the hassle. The results are either not that good or way too expensive, and if you couldn't rely on open models paid for by VC, you wouldn't be able to get anything off the ground.
It's the same at my employer, which has wasted untold thousands on subscriptions to ChatGPT and CoPilot and all we've gotten out of it so far is a script that takes in transaction data and spits out "customer loyalty recommendations".. as if we don't already have a marketing department for that. XD
I think most people don’t understand the one fundamental thing about AI: ChatGPT, Dall-E and what not are just products produced by machine learning, not AI themselves. Machine learning is already doing a lot of work for science and it‘s utterly unthinkable to not utilize it in fields like chemistry for example. We only read about media producing LLMs because we just consume so damn much media. Maybe that‘s something we should think about.
Nobody fired workers because of AI, that's just the narrative so they don't have to say "we're running out of money".
It's also downsizing from when tech companies went on a hiring spree during the early years of the pandemic.
A lot of top level big brains thought they could fire people and replace them with AI, cause for them they're like robots they see in movies.
So changing the name to corp.ai wasn't clever?
Not every new technology or shift in the economy is a "bubble" that's inevitably going to "pop" someday.
But this one definitely is.
It's like watching the Blockchain saga in fast-forward.
But this one definitely is.
Such confidence. Why do you think so?
Many of the shifts that have happened in the economy are a result of capabilities that existing AI models actually demonstrably have right now, rather than anticipation of future developments. Even if no further developments happen those existing capabilities aren't going to just "go away" again somehow.
Also worth noting, blockchains are still around and are doing just fine.
Blockchain is over 10 years old and still not used for its primary purpose: a currency for legal transactions. It's way too volatile and very few institutions accept it.
AI can't reach its promised capability of doing everything for us automatically because it isn't actually AI. It's just advanced Clippy and autocomplete. It can't replace anyone senior. It's just a crappy intern.
Why do you think that's its primary purpose? It has lots of uses. The point is that it's doing fine, it hasn't "gone away." And if you need a non-volatile cryptocurrency for some purpose there are a variety of stablecoins designed to meet that need.
AI can't reach its promised capability of doing everything for us automatically
Your criterion for a "bubble popping" is that the technology doesn't grow to completely dominate the world and do everything that anyone has ever imagined it could do? That's a pretty extreme bar to hold it to, I don't know of any technology that's passed it.
It's just advanced Clippy and autocomplete. It can't replace anyone senior.
So it can replace people lower than "senior?" That's still quite revolutionary.
When spreadsheet and word processing programs became commonplace whole classes of jobs ceased to exist. Low-level accountants, secretarial pools, and so forth. Those jobs never came back because the spreadsheet and word processing programs are still working fine in that role to this day. AI's going to do the same to another swath of jobs. Dismissing it as "just advanced Clippy" isn't going to stop it from taking those jobs, it's only going to make the people who were replaced by it feel a little worse about what they previously did for a living.
Why do you think that's its primary purpose? It has lots of uses. The point is that it's doing fine, it hasn't "gone away."
Sure, that's why I only ever hear about unregulated securities when a scam makes the news. XD
Your criterion for a "bubble popping" is that the technology doesn't grow to completely dominate the world and do everything that anyone has ever imagined it could do? That's a pretty extreme bar to hold it to, I don't know of any technology that's passed it.
My criterion for a bubble pop is the sudden and intense disinvestment that occurs once the irrational exuberance wears out and the bean counters start writing off unprofitable debt.
Given that so-called "AI" is falling into the trough of disillusionment, I'd expect it to begin in earnest within a few months.
So it can replace people lower than "senior?" That's still quite revolutionary.
No, it can't, because it isn't and cannot be made trustworthy. If you need a human to review the output for hallucinations then you might as well save yourself the licensing costs and let the human do the work in the first place.
You've switched from saying that a cryptocurrency's "primary purpose" is as a currency for transactions to saying that they're securities, those are not remotely similar things.
Anyway. Are you aware that, assuming the Gartner hype cycle actually does apply here (it's not universal) and AI is really in the "trough of disillusionment", beyond that phase lies the "slope of enlightenment" wherein the technology settles into long-term usage? I feel like you're tossing terminology around in this discussion without knowing a lot about what it actually means.
No, it can't, because it isn't and cannot be made trustworthy. If you need a human to review the output for hallucinations then you might as well save yourself the licensing costs and let the human do the work in the first place.
If you think it can't replace anyone then why say "It can't replace anyone senior"?
Also, what licensing costs? Some AI providers charge service fees for using them, but as far as I'm aware none of them claim copyright over the output of LLMs. And there are open-weight LLMs you can run yourself on your own computer if you want complete independence.
You've switched from saying that a cryptocurrency's "primary purpose" is as a currency for transactions
That was someone else's argument, but it can't be denied that the original use-case envisioned blockchain securities as a currency.
Anyway. Are you aware that, assuming the Gartner hype cycle actually does apply here (it's not universal) and AI is really in the "trough of disillusionment", beyond that phase lies the "slope of enlightenment" wherein the technology settles into long-term usage? I feel like you're tossing terminology around in this discussion without knowing a lot about what it actually means.
I'm well aware, it's the slope down into the trough that will pop the bubble of "AI" overinvestment. I wouldn't be surprised if some application of LLM tech finds a profitable niche, but I'd be very surprised to see it in common use outside of automated copywriting for scammers.
No, it can't, because it isn't and cannot be made trustworthy. If you need a human to review the output for hallucinations then you might as well save yourself the licensing costs and let the human do the work in the first place.
If you think it can't replace anyone then why say "It can't replace anyone senior"?
That wasn't me.
Also, what licensing costs? Some AI providers charge service fees for using them,
Those ones.
but as far as I'm aware none of them claim copyright over the output of LLMs.
Hasn't it already been ruled that LLM outputs cannot be copyrighted, or was that just patents and I'm misremembering?
And there are open-weight LLMs you can run yourself on your own computer if you want complete independence.
Ah yes, because rolling your own unreliable text generator is so much less expensive. XD
That wasn't me.
Apologies, you're right. I took care to double check the wording but neglected to spot the different username.
Hasn't it already been ruled that LLM outputs cannot be copyrighted, or was that just patents and I'm misremembering?
No, there have been a lot of misleading news articles with headlines like that but nothing like that has been decided in any jurisdictions that I'm aware of.
The most popular news story to get headlines like that is the Thaler v. Perlmutter case, if you do a Google search for that you'll find an endless stream of "U.S. Court holds that AI generated works cannot be copyrighted" headlines. But that's not remotely what the case was actually about. What actually happened was that Thaler generated an image using an AI and then went to the US Copyright office to register the copyright *in the name of the program that generated it." That is, he went to the Copyright office and told them "the copyright for this work is solely held by the computer that generated it. Nobody else was involved in its creation." The copyright office responded "that's silly, copyright can only be held by a person (human or corporate). A computer is not a person." Since the list of copyright-holders Thaler was claiming was therefore zero, the Copyright office ruled that the work must be in the public domain.
Thaler sued, and in the subsequent court case he tried to add himself to the list of copyright-holders. The judge said "no, that's not what this suit is about, knock it off. You told the copyright office you didn't hold a copyright to that work, and as a result their ruling that the work was uncopyrighted was correct."
If he'd tried to claim copyright for himself from the start there wouldn't have been any problem. There have been other instances where humans have registered copyrights for works that they used an AI to generate. The only reason Thaler failed was because he specifically and explicitly said that he wasn't claiming copyright over it. This has unfortunately turned into one of those "suing McDonalds for making their coffee hot" semi-urban-legends.
And even if a U.S. court did make a ruling along those lines, the U.S. isn't the whole world. There are plenty of countries out there that would be happy to take the lead instead if the U.S. decided it didn't want to be supportive of local AI-driven industry.
Ah yes, because rolling your own unreliable text generator is so much less expensive. XD
It really is. I run LLMs on my home computer myself, for fun, using a commodity graphics card. The models it can run don't quite reach ChatGPT's level of sophistication but they're close, and they have the advantage that I can control them much more precisely to perform the tasks that I want them to perform. If I wanted to use a more sophisticated open model there are cloud providers that could run it for me for pennies, I just like having the hardware completely under my control.
blockchains are still around and are doing just fine.
They are, though. The total market cap across cryptocurrencies right now is about $2.75 trillion.
You misspelled "Unlicensed Securities", and taking crypto scammers at their word when they tell you how much their bits are worth is an easy way to lose actual money. XD
hiring back to do what?
they don't even need that much staff
hiring back to do what?
Generate revenue for the shareholders.
they don't even need that much staff
There's more work to be done than there are people to do it all, lol~
We are here
I feel like the market is still very much near the peak.
Yeah I think the tech curve and the market curve are offset. With the market curve behind
Definitely getting to that point, past the peak, but I think we're a little bit further to the left still.
Same shit that happened with cryptocurrency and NFTs. Suddenly the tech illiterate c-suites realize it isn't magically making profits go up.
“outside of a few areas such as coding, companies have found generative AI isn't the panacea they once imagined.”
It certainly helps with coding, but a human still needs to fix all the mistakes.
Yeah, and that's not going away for coding or any other place that finds a way to implement these systems anytime soon.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
