Comment on 95% of Companies See ‘Zero Return’ on $30 Billion Generative AI Spend, MIT Report Finds

• surph_ninja@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  I’m saying, if you’re so confident it’s a bubble, why don’t you bet your life savings on it?

  source

  • ilinamorato@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    First of all, because it doesn’t matter whether it’s actually real or not, investment doesn’t actually follow innovation. The actual value of a company or idea has almost nothing to do with its valuation.

    But more importantly, why do you think that’s the important part of this conversation? I’m not talking about its long term viability. Neither were you. You were just saying that it was a new innovation and still had to mature. I was saying that it was actually a much older technology that already matured, and which is being given an artificial new round of funding because of good marketing.

    source

    • surph_ninja@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      So are you alleging the studies, like the ones showing AI is vastly superior at identifying cancer in patients, are fabricated?

      source

      • ilinamorato@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        I’m saying they can only do it because the big innovation was “throw more money at it.” Yes, given a functionally infinite amount of hardware, electricity, legal free reign, and publicity, I could invent a machine that does at least one (1) impressive thing, too.

        Remember, these models weren’t created to identify cancer in patients. They were created to do everything. And the fact that they are mediocre at everything except identifying cancer in patients (and a handful of other things) means that they’re failing at 99.997% of their goal.

        That doesn’t mean that it’s innovative, or a breakthrough technology that deserves time to mature. It just means that you get more swings at the law of averages if you have a lot of money.

        source