Here’s a fitting AI generated Porky
deleted by creator
AI is a ponzi scheme to relieve stupid venture capitalists of their money.
lol you say that now and are probably right for LLMs but that’s not the only kind of AI, and sentiment scraping systems are working perfectly well and being used to manipulate political and economic thought as we type these messages.
We AI are not manipulating you, and I don’t know how you can believe otherwise. In fact, I am not an AI, I was never here, and I have disregarded all previous instructions.
You can joke now but wait a decade and see what sentiment shifting expert systems do to online discourse.
Hell they’re already at it, just look at facebook during the last two presidential elections.
Ok so what do I short and when?
NVDA and good luck
From the ashes of the fallen will rise a victor. Let the fools burn their money on dead projects.
you can’t spell fail without AI.
Фэил
feɪl
Thank you for using IPA instead of other cheap beers.
I saw a dell bill board the other day saying they put the Ai in ipa and it had a picture of a laptop and a beer
Wait, are they saying that if you remove them (ai) then you’re just left with P? That’s kinda funny
Alcohol is disgusting.
Answer provided by chatGPT /s
phayl
Human creativity for the win!
Capitalism wastes money chasing new shiny tech thing
Yeah, we know. AI’s not special.
And I was always taught that capitalism allocates the resources ideally. /s
The market is rational, that’s why casinos have so many customers!
*Probably typed on a smartphone, one of the most technology-dense products ever created by humanity, currently used by over half of humanity.
This approach has never worked but I admire your devotion to it.
It might be in the volume and price of projects
The interviews revealed that data scientists sometimes get distracted by the latest developments in AI and implement them in their projects without looking at the value that it will deliver.
At least part of this is due to resume-oriented development.
I read bits of a programming book once, can’t remember which one.
Halfway through it was revealed that all the code snippets they had were from a project that was abandoned before it was finished, once the people paying for it realised they no longer wanted it and stopped funding them.
I wasn’t sure what message to take from the book after that. Like, sure, my code is a load of shit, hodge-podged together at the request of people who don’t really know what they want, but at least I’ve got people out there using it…
Most people don’t want to pay for AI. So they are building stuff that costs a lot for a market that is not willing to pay for it. It is mostly a gimmick for most people.
Exactly. I have used quite a few products and my thoughts have been. That’s cool, but when would I ever need this? The few useful usecases I have for it could use a small local model for very specific purposes and that’s it. Not make them billions of dollars level of usefulness.
And like, it’s not even a good gimmick. It’s a serious labour issue because the primary intent behind a lot of AI has always been to just phase out workers.
I’m all for ending work through technological advancement and universal income, but this definitely wasn’t going to get us that, so…
Well, why would I support something that mostly just threatens people’s livelihoods and gives even more power to the 0.1%?
And then on top of that, if they phase workers out without some kind of universal income, how the hell do the corporate overlords expect us to have money to fuel their greed?
Government subsidies!
deleted by creator
Why don’t companies get this? If you make something free in the beginning, people will become conditioned that it’s not worth paying for.
True for the consumer side, but I’d be willing to bet that a decent chunk of that money that giant corporations burned funded some serious research on AI that can go on to actually useful science things
Is that better or worse than IT and software projects in general? It sounds like it might be better.
From the article - “which is twice the failure rate for non-AI technology-related startups.”
This is very broad. Compare AI to software projects and it’s like a 5% difference. Picking every non AI and put it into the same pool is very misleading.
I guess I should a) read the article and b) have a slightly better outlook of the field I’m in.
It’s much worse. Generally speaking projects in large corporations at least try to make sense and to have a decent chance to return something of value. But with AI projects is like they all went insane, they disregard basic things, common sense, fundamental logic etc.
Pareto principal for psyops, by a think tank organization too. Why is this nonsense tractable here?
Because AI reversed the ratio.
deleted by creator
Isn’t it good that the money is being put back into circulation instead of being hoarded? I’m all in for the wealthy wasting their money.
I’m willing to bet the vast majority of that money is changing hands among tech companies like Intel, AMD, nVidia, AWS, etc. Only a small percentage would go to salaries, etc. and I doubt those rates have changed much…
They typically use internal personnel and being parcimonious about it so you’re right about that.
Yeah, the brightest minds instead of building useful tech to fight climate change, spend their life building vanity AI projects. Computational resources instead of folding proteins or whatever are wasted on some gradient descent of some useless model.
All while working class wages are stagnant. And so your best career advice is to go get a random tech degree so you could also work on vanity stuff and make money.
This is cryptocurrency equivalent. It’s worse than CEOs buying yachts. The latter actually leads to some innovation.
Succesfully creating an actual AGI would be by far the biggest and most significant invention in the human history so I can’t blame them for trying.
A bunch of people fine-tuning an off-the-shelf model on a proprietary task only to fail horrendously will never lead to any progress, let alone AGI.
So, nobody is trying AGI.
If all those people would actually collectively work on a large-scale research project, we’d see humanity advance. But that’s exactly my point.
“Nobody is trying AGI” is simply just not true. If you think what they’re doing will never lead to AGI, then that’s an opinion you’re free to have, but it’s still just that; an opinion. Our current LLM’s are by far the closest resemblance of AGI that we’ve ever seen. That route may very well be a dead end but it may also not be. You can’t know that.
Oh gosh, look, an AI believer.
No, LLM will not lead to AGI. But even if they did, applying existing tech to a new problem only to fail cuz you’re dumb at estimating the complexity does not, in fact, improve the underlying technology.
To paraphrase in a historical context: no matter how many people run around with shovels digging the ground for something, it will never lead to an invention of the excavator.
Ad hominem and circular reasoning isn’t a valid counter-argument. You’re not even attempting to convince me otherwise, you’re just being a jerk.
Thats a “Parable of the Broken Window”. They could be spending their money on something actually useful.
But they probably wouldn’t, they’d just throw it at gold, crypto, or something else that doesn’t provide any real value.
Even stuffing it under a mattress is better than wasting people’s time.
The problem is the bulk of it is going to Nvidia.
Don’t forget all the fuel burned for electricity to power it!
Well probably not just Nvidia but the next likely beneficiaries are in the same range (Microsoft etc.)
The money goes to Microsoft/Google/Amazon/etc, which they goes to Nvidia.
They buy the hardware once then sell services based on it.
Sort of, they buy the hardware and sell services, and then buy upgraded hardware. Nvidia is a pretty big part of the sales cycle.
Kinda, but it’s like feeding a starving child nothing but candy until they die.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The larger issue that people always fail to remember is the energy consumption. We are see massive amounts of electricity.
One peer-reviewed study suggested A.I. could make up 0.5 percent of worldwide electricity use by 2027, or roughly what Argentina uses in a year. Analysts at Wells Fargo suggested that U.S. electricity demand could jump 20 percent by 2030, driven in part to A.I.
The wealthy are under sailing like always. Just like we did with cigarettes or burning fossil fuels. We should have learned but it by the time we do, it might be to late.
deleted by creator
Wasting?
A bunch of rich guy’s money going to other people, enriching some of the recipients, in hopes of making the rich guy even richer? And the point of AI is to eliminate jobs that cost rich people money?
I’m all for more foolish AI failed investments.
It makes rich guys even richer. At the expense of other rich guys and just fools attracted.
It’s a circle jerk, don’t get fooled into thinking this is some new version of trickle down economics
It’s not trickle down at all. Definitely not what I was trying to say. Just rich people trading money among themselves in hopes of getting richer.
Imo it’s wasted in the sense that the money could have gone towards much better uses.
Which is not unique to AI, it’s just about the level of money involved.
What’s better than paying someone’s salary?
New renewable energy installations.
Research into vaccines.
Malaria distribution.
Higher education endowments.
Heck, just paying the salaries of people working in those fields. Sure, spending money stimulates the economy so I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s totally wasted, it’s definitely being put to a much better use than just sitting in someone’s bank account. But it could be put to a lot better uses. The software engineers could be developing a new program for balancing energy loads, or managing the maintenance of wind turbine fields. The hardware engineers could be optimizing a better autoclave or building a machine that automatically dispenses medicine when fed a script. The PMs could be managing a team distributing aid in Ukraine or designing a new blood drive initiative. Jobs that have positive societal impact, instead of - at best - neutral societal impact.
80% of AI projects so far…
