| ▲ | budsniffer952 2 days ago |
| This "AI business" has really opened my eyes to how..insane the average person is, and just how bad discourse has gotten. Look at the conversation: people are writing off this technology (on a tech forum no less) as useless, because it can make mistakes. We criticize the cost, and the business models, and the companies, the purveyors and users. Why? Because we don't quite understand how best to use it...3 years in. People have lost all concept of time scales, I guess. They expect everything to be polished and mature NOW. How many people realize that could take a decade or more? So, yeah, a stodgy old company has figured out they don't need to hire and don't need to travel, and AI is expensive. So what? |
|
| ▲ | thelastgallon 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| This kind of thinking (we'll figure it out how to use it correctly, it is awesome technology) is not new. There was blockchain psychosis (blockchain/crypto solves everything!) for a decade, which is now replaced with AI will solve everything. |
| |
| ▲ | frameset 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | A bit of NFT madness to go with the Blockchain stuff too. | | |
| ▲ | rf15 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | NFT was surprisingly short-lived considering it rode on the coattails of the blockchain | |
| ▲ | Zanfa 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | And can’t forget Metaverse and the $70B Meta sunk into it either. |
| |
| ▲ | derektank 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The difference is that cryptocurrencies never had an obvious benefit beyond subverting the existing banking sector. A more apt comparison would be to cloud computing, which likewise had its host of detractors (“It’s just somebody else’s computer!”) but which brought very obvious benefits to small developers and enterprises which couldn’t host their own hardware. | | |
| ▲ | gtowey 2 days ago | parent [-] | | "This time it's different" is also a refrain we've heard with every new bubble. It shouldn't be surprising that some people want to take a measured, skeptical approach. Even if it means they are slightly behind the bleeding edge. Even if you have to play catch-up, it can be more efficient to let others find all the dead ends first and avoid them. |
| |
| ▲ | lijok 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What does crypto have to do with this? DuPont has sunk billions into synthetics that were looking for a business model and ultimately proved useless. Why not compare AI to that? | |
| ▲ | budsniffer952 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Is blockchain really your analogy here? Something that is also new? You are proving my point. You say it's "not new", but then don't seem to have any gauge of technological history. How long before the internet was monetized? 30 years? | | |
| ▲ | johannes1234321 2 days ago | parent [-] | | About 30 years ago we had the sitcom bubble. Tulip mania was in the 1630ies, about 400 years ago. There always have been attempts to exploit others for personal gain and people following that. The new thing is the speed in which this happens globally. But there had been other accelerators bringing equal jumps. Introduction of cross ocean telegraph cables, flight, book printing, ... True, modern technology makes results globally available with very little marginal costs. However on the spread of ideas the last item mentioned on the list above is extremely interesting to study: Book printing brought translations of the Bible into more places and took reproduction and interpretation of those texts out of the hands of the few (mostly the church) to broader masses (for as long as people could read) which lead to lots of political conflicts and redistribution of power in Europe with impact to colonies worldwide. By people following one interpretation of a text and derived rules more than another. To a large degree since books with ideas could now be replicated within days instead of years. As now ideas are replicated within minutes rather than days. |
| |
| ▲ | j-bos 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is reasoning from shallow similarity. If you have not been able to find areas where AI actually does solve things, I don't know what to tell you. Go look at the number of vulnerabilities being solved. Go look at the speed of their solves. On the opposite side, go look at the number of vulnerabilities being found and exploited. Go look at the speed of their being exploited. Yes, it's a negative externality, but it's an example of an extreme productivity boost, which is easy to measure. Take a minute dropping on YouTube or X and actually look for people who are making small scale manufacturing. Look at the speed of their development cycles. Not software development cycles, real world atom development cycles. And then compare it to the speed of their development as of five years ago. Notice a difference? Even the complaints of crypto, while valid, are a bit overstated given that there are hundreds of millions of people in third world countries where money transfers are not reliable, not stable, and they depend on crypto. Yes, there's a bunch of criminals as well. I agree. My point is superficial dismissal is head-in-the-sand behavior. And that's your choice. I mean, it's fine by me. |
|
|
| ▲ | aboardRat4 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's not useless, it's just dangerous to use. It's like heroin basically. It does make you feel good instantly, and it can be a life-saver in certain situations of extreme pain or chronic pain (cancer), but there is a reason people are prohibiting the original substance, and also trying to develop less dangerous versions, such as methadone and tramadol. |
|
| ▲ | lijok 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This isn’t unreasonable at all. AI has promised to cause an unprecedented, continuous disruption to the working class. “Being replaced by robots” - a topic anyone of working age is very familiar with. Why would you be surprised there exists a proportionate amount of pushback in the form of incoherent rhetoric? |
|
| ▲ | Foobar8568 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| What I find the most amusing is ... "AI code is crap".
I think I heard enough time "this codebase is shit, we need a full rewrite" to know that no one agrees what is quality code. Suddenly, everyone are expert writing the most elegant, clean and without bug code. |
