I think the difference between all previous technologies is scope. If you make a super sonic jet that gets people from place A to place B faster for more money, but the target consumer is like "yeah, I don't care that much about that at that price point", then your tech sort is of dead. You are also fully innovated on that product, like maybe you can make it more fuel efficient, sure, but your scope is narrow.

AI is the opposite. There are numerous things it can do and numerous ways to improve it (currently). There is lower upfront investment than say a supersonic jet and many more ways it can pivot if something doesn't work out.

▲

davidcbc 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The number of things it can actually do is significantly lower than the number of things the hype men are claiming it can do.

▲

digianarchist 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's not a great analogy. The only parallel with Concorde is energy consumption. I think a better analogy would have been VR.

	▲	strangescript 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I mean, thats the point, they aren't the same. Concorde was one dimensional, AI is not.

▲

peder 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Most of the comments here feel like cope about AI TBH. There's never been an innovation like this ever, and it makes sense to get on board rather than be left behind.

	▲	Gormo 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> There's never been an innovation like this ever There have been plenty of innovations like this. In fact, much of the hype around LLMs is a rehash of the hype around "expert systems" back in the '80s. LLMs are marginally more effective than those systems, but only marginally.