I believe that we're investing trillions into making it so.

We invested at least a couple trillion of speculative value into making ugly cartoon apes the future of art, finance and property. I'm not sure it's always possible to overwhelm reality with sufficient money.

▲

0c3ca83 a day ago | parent [-]

We didn't. Investment into it peaked at a few fractions of a percent of what's going into AI.

I would like to be optimistic about the whole thing falling apart, but I don't know that it will.

▲

ForHackernews a day ago | parent [-]

I'm not saying it will "fall apart", I just think the burden of proof is on AI boosters for their extraordinary claims.

They are saying this thing will soon obsolete human thought; meanwhile I use these tools every day and can't get it to refactor a React app cleanly without making a mess.

It's telling that OpenAI's decided they're going to sell ads in ChatGPT. Instead of, you know, using their AI themselves to produce all these valuable and revolutionary breakthroughs they claim it's capable of making.

▲

0c3ca83 a day ago | parent [-]

Like how Anthropic has started to run their own biology labs?

▲

ForHackernews a day ago | parent [-]

Probably wildly irresponsible given they think it's likely to kill everyone with a virus, but yes.

If you have a super-intelligent AI that can cure cancer, just sell the cure for cancer already?

▲

im3w1l 17 hours ago | parent [-]

Medicine is a slow moving field. If they discovered the cure today how many years will it take to be certified as safe and effective by medical boards? More years than they have runway, in all likelihood.

▲

ForHackernews 14 hours ago | parent [-]

That's another way of saying the same thing: even if AI is great, there's all kinds of reasons why it won't be a new industrial revolution.

Intelligence is very rarely the limiting reagent in progress.

	▲	im3w1l 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No it is absolutely revolutionary, but they do have to think about cashflow.