Comments

• simple@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  AI was a promise more than anything. When ChatGPT came out, all the AI companies and startups promised exponential improvements that will chaaangeee the woooooorrlllddd

  Two years later it’s becoming insanely clear they hit a wall and there isn’t going to be much change unless someone makes a miraculous discovery. All of that money was dumped in to just make bigger models that are 0.1% better than the last one.

  source

  • henrikx@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    You should all see the story about the invention blue LEDs. No one believed that it could work except some japanese guy (Shuji Nakamura) who kept working on it despite his company telling him to stop working on it. No one believed it could ever be solved despite being so close.

    source

    • zbyte64@awful.systems ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I mean if you ignore all the papers that point out how dubious the gen AI benchmarks are, then it is very impressive.

      source
    • cley_faye@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      No one believed that it could work except some japanese guy

      There is a difference in not knowing how to do a thing and someone coming out doing the thing, and knowing how something works, knowing it’s by design limitations, and still hoping it may work out.

      source
    • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      mwahahah. The people who are working on LLMs right now are the dumbasses and MBAs of the industry. If we ever get anything like an artificial general AI, it will come from a team of serious researchers / engineers who don’t give a shit about marketing.

      source
  • whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I don’t think they were really trying, it was just an easy way to get funds no?

    source

    • bamboo@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      There are millions of people devoting huge amounts of time and energy into improving AI capabilities, publishing paper after paper finding new ways to improve models, training, etc. Perhaps some companies are using AI hype to get free money but that doesn’t discredit the hard work of others.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• gedaliyah@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I remember saying a year ago when everybody was talking about the AI revolution: The AI revolution already happened. We’ve seen what it can do, and it won’t expand much more.

  Most people were shocked by that statement because it seemed like AI was just getting started. But here we are, a year later, and I still think it’s true.

  source

  • OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The AI revolution already happened. We’ve seen what it can do, and it won’t expand much more.

    That’s like seeing a basic electronic calculator in the 60s and saying that computing won’t expand much more. Full-AI isn’t here yet, but it’s coming, and it will far exceed everything that we have right now.

    source

    • HackyHorse3000@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      That’s the thing though, that’s not comparable, and misses the point entirely. “AI” in this context and the conversations regarding it in the current day is specifically talking about LLMs. They will not improve to the point of general intelligence as that is not how they work. Hallucinations are inevitable with the current architectures and methods, and they lack a inherent understanding of concepts in general. It’s the same reason they can’t do math or logic problems that aren’t common in the training set. It’s not intelligence. Modern computers are built on the same principals and architectures as those calculators were, just iterated upon extensively. No such leap is possible using large language models. They are entirely reliant on a finite pool of data to try to mimic most effectively, they are not learning or understanding concepts the way “Full-AI” would need to to actually be reliable or able to generate new ideas.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • gedaliyah@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Oh, I’m not saying that there won’t one day come a better technology that can do a lot more. What I’m saying is that the present technology will never do much more than it is already doing. This is not an issue of refining the technology for more applications. It’s a matter of completely developing a new type of technology.

      In areas of generative text, summarizing articles and books, as well as writing short portions of code in order to assist humans, creating simple fan art, and meaningless images like avatars, and those stock photos at the top of articles, Perhaps creating short animations, Improving pattern recognition of things like speech and facial recognition… In all of these areas, AI was very rapidly revolutionary.

      Generative AI will not become capable of doing things that it’s not already doing. Most of what it’s replacing are just worse computer programs. Some new technology will undoubtedly be revolutionary in the way that computers were a completely new revolution on top of basic function calculators. People are developing quantum computers, and mapping the precise functions of brain cells. If you want, you can download a completely mapped actual nematode brain right now. You can buy brain cells online, even human brain cells, and put them into computers. Maybe they can even run Doom. I have no idea what the next computing revolution will be capable of, but this one has mostly run its course. It has given us some very incredible tools in a very narrow scope, and those tools will continue to improve incrementally, but there will be no additional revolution.

      source
    • turmacar@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Sure.

      GPT4 is not that. Neither will GPT5 be that. They are language models that marketing is calling AI. They have a very specific use case, and it’s not something that can replace any work/workers that requires any level of traceability or accountability. It’s just “the thing the machine said”.

      Marketing latched onto “AI” because blockchain and cloud and algorithmic had gotten stale and media and CEOs went nuts. I Samsung is now producing an “AI” vacuum that adjusts suction between hardwood and carpet. That’s not new technology. That’s not even a new way of doing that technology. It’s just jumping on the bandwagon.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      That’s like seeing a basic electronic calculator in the 60s and saying that computing won’t expand much more.

      “Who would ever need more than 640K of RAM?” -Bill Gates

      source
    • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      That’s like seeing a basic electronic calculator in the 60s and saying that computing won’t expand much more. Full-AI isn’t here yet, but it’s coming, and it will far exceed everything that we have right now.

      go back to school, hopefully your next statement won’t sound as dumb.

      source
  • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Those people were talking about the kind of AI we see in sci-fi, not the spellchecker-on-steroids we have today. There used to be a distinction, but marketing has muddied those waters. The sci-fi variety has been rebranded “AGI” so I guess the rest of that talk would go right along with it - the ‘AGI singularity’ and such.

    All still theoretically possible, but I imagine climate will take us out or we’ll find some clever new way to make ourselves extinct before real AI …or AGI… becomes a thing.

    source

    • jaybone@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Given AI’s energy needs, it’s already helping to take us out.

      source
  • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    AI development is indeed a series of S-curves and we’re currently nearing the peak of the curve. It’s going to be some time before the new S begins.

    source
  • SeattleRain@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It’ll expand but it will take 5-10 years. Just like Web 1.0 and 2.0.

    source

    • cley_faye@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Not with the current tech. It can go faster, have more detailed output, maybe consume less too, but there seems to be a ceiling on what LLM and their derivative can do. There has been no improvement in that regard, and people that look into it are pretty confident that it won’t happen at this point.

      source
  • Uplink@programming.dev ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I think it all depends on how good our tools to detect AI generated content become. If it is not distinguishable, then the internet is probably about to be flooded by AI generated content which in turn means AI is going to be trained more and more with AI content, degrading the model in the process.

    source
• suction@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  NO KIDDING YOU WORLD-DESTROYING MONEYHUNGRY COCKROACHES

  source
• mindlight@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Goldman Sachs is overhyped and unreliable.

  source

  • ogmios@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I do find the similarities between the function of AI and the function of a corporation to be quite interesting…

    source

    • paraphrand@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      It’s all the bullshitting going on.

      source
  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Be that as it may, I don’t think they’re incorrect in their statement here.

    source
• nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  We know, you guys tried using the buzz around it to push down wages. You either got what you wanted and flipped tune, or realized you feel for another tech bro middle-manning unsolicited solutions into already working systems.

  source
• Duamerthrax@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point

  source
• doeknius_gloek@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Never thought I’d agree with Goldman Sachs.

  source
• afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  If Goldman Sachs told me the sky was blue, I would go outside, check, and get am eye exam.

  source
• echodot@feddit.uk ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Yeah but it’s Goldman Sachs saying it. Presumably because they haven’t invested in AI.

  Perhaps we could get a non-biased opinion and also from an actual expert rather than some finance here who really doesn’t know anything?

  source

  • 0x0@programming.dev ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I’d say they know a thing or two about finance… so maybe they didn’t invest because they see it as overhype?

    source
  • balder1991@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The problem is experts in AI are biased towards AI.

    source
  • frezik@midwest.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It’s noteworthy because it’s Goldman Sachs. Lots of money people are dumping it into AI. When a major outlet for money people starts to show skepticism, that could mean the bubble is about to pop.

    source
  • demonsword@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Presumably because they haven’t invested in AI.

    Presumably is carrying all the weight of your whole post here

    Perhaps we could get a non-biased opinion and also from an actual expert rather than some finance ghoul who really doesn’t know anything?

    I also hate banks, but usually those guys can sniff out market failures way ahead of the rest of us. All their bacon rides on that, after all

    source
• coffee_with_cream@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  It’s weird to me that people on Lemmy are so anti ML. If you aren’t impressed, you haven’t used it enough. “Oh it’s not 100% perfect”

  source

  • nandeEbisu@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    In terms of practical commercial uses, these highly human in the loop systems are about where it is and there are practical applications and products build off of it. I think what was sold though is a much more of either a replacement of people or a significant jump in functionality.

    For example, there are products that will give you an AI summary of a structured or fairly uniform document like a generic press release, but there’s not really a good replacement for something to read backgrounds on 50 different companies and figure out which one you should invest in without a human basically doing all of that work themselves anyway just to check the work of the AI. The latter is what is being sold to make the enormous cost of hosting and training AI worth it.

    source
  • smiletolerantly@awful.systems ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I was fully on board until, like, a year ago. But the more I used it, the more obviously it came undone.

    I initially felt like it could really help with programming. And it looked like it, too - when you fed it toy problems where you don’t really care about how the solution looks, as long as it’s somewhat OK. But once you start giving it constraints that stem from a real project, it just stops being useful. It ignores constraints (use this library, do not make additional queries, …), and when you point out its mistake and ask it to to better it goes “oh, sorry! Here, let me do the same thing again, with the same error!”.

    If you’re working in a less common language, it even dreams up non-existing syntax.

    Even the one thing it should be good at - plain old language - it sucks ass at. It’s become so easy to spot LLM garbage, just due to its style.

    Worse, asking it to proofread a text for spelling and grammar mistakes, but to explicitly do not change the wording or style, there’s about a 50/50 chance it will either

    • change your wording or style, or
    • point out errors that are not even in the original text in the first place!

    I could honestly go on and on, but what it boils down to is: it is able to string together words that make it sound like it knows what it is doing, but it is just that, a facade. And it looks like for more and more people, the spell is finally breaking.

    source
• hendrik@palaver.p3x.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Came here to say, we read last week that the industry spent $600bn on GPUs, they need that investment returned and we're getting AI whether it's useful or not... But that's also written in the article.

  source
• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Wow, I hate Goldman Sachs, but I think they’re on to something here…

  source
• mctoasterson@reddthat.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I mean they aren’t wrong. From an efficiency standpoint, current AI is like using a 350hp car engine to turn a childs rock tumbler, or spin art thingy. Sure, it produces some interesting outputs, at the cost of way too much energy for what is being done. That is the current scenario of using generalized compute or even high end GPUs for AI.

  Best I can tell is, the “way forward” is further development of ASICs that are specific to the model being run. This should increase efficiency, decrease the ecological impact (less electricity usage) and free up silicon and components, possibly decreasing price and increasing availablity of things like consumer graphics cards again (but I won’t hold my breath for that part).

  source
• mrvictory1@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  In 2 interviews, the interviewees claim that the investors may lose faith in return of investment if “the killer application of AI” is not available in 18 months. In other words, if the AI is a bubble, it will burst in only 18 months.

  source

  • greybeard@lemmy.one ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Financially? Yeah, AI is a bubble for sure. Gobs of money are being poured in with few results to show for it. That bubble will burst. But just like the dotcom bubble, that doesn’t mean the technology is useless or won’t change the world, just not instantly over night with a single investment, which is what the investment groups expect.

    source

    • wewbull@feddit.uk ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      This technology requires finance. You can’t train a model without millions of dollars.

      If the money goes the technology is dead until the cost of the training machines comes down a few orders of magnitude.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    That seems like a fair assumption. I would argue we are at the peak of the bubble and only recently we’ve seen the suits (Goldman Sachs and more broadly analysts at banks) start asking questions about ROI and real use cases.

    source
• gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  There’s not a lot I agree with GS on, but this is on the list.

  source

  • Antaeus@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I concur.

    source
• Evotech@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Finally, the suits are catching up

  source
• themurphy@lemmy.ml ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  There’s a company that didn’t invest in AI in time. Sounds just like Republican Elon Musk when he cried over AI being years ahead of his own.

  source

  • Laser@feddit.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    I don’t want to imply GS did a responsible thing, but… if they assessed the situation two years ago and decided RoI is unlikely and as such didn’t invest - wouldn’t their current stance actually be reasonable?

    source
• Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Goldman Sachs is overhyped and unreliable.

  source
• lanolinoil@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Hey! This god damned steam engine keeps using up all our fucking water and coal. This shit is so inefficient and overhyped

  source

  • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It’s like how steam powered cars were developed, but by the time they engineered out all the disadvantages like start to bring the car up to temperature half an hour before driving, the gasoline powered car was there leaving the steam car is the dust.

    Not to mention the experiments with steam powered aircraft.

    source

    • lanolinoil@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      yeah might as well wait for LLLLLMs

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • bamboo@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Remember that time the dot com bubble burst and that was the end of the internet commerce? Crazy people thought they could buy and sell goods and services over the internet. Glad we live in saner times now.

    source
• MyOpinion@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  The final thought in the article was perfect. What is this all for? Nothing it seems in the end.

  source

  • zbyte64@awful.systems ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    WDYM? The big corporations get a free pass to ignore their climate pledges and do the exact opposite.

    source
• Fades@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Absolutely true, but the morons (willful and no) will take this as proof that it’s altogether useless and a net negative.

  source
• Soundhole@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Oh yeah? It’s great for porn, Goldman Sachs, you bunch of suit wearing degenerates. I bet a lot of people would argue that’s pretty freaking useful.

  source
• Alpagu@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  This is a start. It will be better.

  source
• interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  OK boomer

  source
• jackblackx@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  AI is dangerous…

  The singularity is near…

  source

  • JackbyDev@programming.dev ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    1. Define singularity in this context
    2. Define near in this context

    source

    • bitwaba@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      3. Define AI in this context

      source