IF the early gen: Alexa, is massively unprofitable, and VC money is burning to get the Current AI Rush going, I don't see how it is not a bubble. Real people and companies can't afford the real cost. People are just cheaper (tm).
""Despite its expensive price tag, the technology is nowhere near where it needs to be in order to be useful," Jim Covello, Goldman Sachs's most senior stock analyst and a 30-year veteran of covering tech companies, said in a recent report about AI. "Overbuilding things the world doesn't have use for, or is not ready for, typically ends badly.""
Who should I believe: (a) Goldman analyst with 30 years experience or (b) HN commenters who consistently dismiss any and all criticism of "AI".
Every criticism or iota of skepticism of "AI", even something as simple as "show me the money", gets countered on HN. It reminds me of the way HN commenters defend "crypto". It is like some sort of religion.
Every day, we have to wade through endless submissions about "AI". Yet an HN poll showed voters thought "AI" was overhyped.
I am going with (a).
Too much focus on "the future" while trying to deflect attention away from the present. Vapourware tactics.
> (b) HN commenters who consistently dismiss any and all criticism of "AI"
I do not really get the same vibe from 'HN commenters'. The way I repeatedly see it presented is, it is a language model (very good at that) and nothing more than that. If with AI we are talking about ChatGPT and alike.
Other AI is often cracked as 'just' very advanced machine learning, reinforced learning etc. In general, HN commenters' seem to be very sceptical or realistic about 'AI' at least in my perception. Of course there may be exceptions (in both commenters and threads).
4 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 16.4 ms ] threadWho should I believe: (a) Goldman analyst with 30 years experience or (b) HN commenters who consistently dismiss any and all criticism of "AI".
Every criticism or iota of skepticism of "AI", even something as simple as "show me the money", gets countered on HN. It reminds me of the way HN commenters defend "crypto". It is like some sort of religion.
Every day, we have to wade through endless submissions about "AI". Yet an HN poll showed voters thought "AI" was overhyped.
I am going with (a).
Too much focus on "the future" while trying to deflect attention away from the present. Vapourware tactics.
I do not really get the same vibe from 'HN commenters'. The way I repeatedly see it presented is, it is a language model (very good at that) and nothing more than that. If with AI we are talking about ChatGPT and alike. Other AI is often cracked as 'just' very advanced machine learning, reinforced learning etc. In general, HN commenters' seem to be very sceptical or realistic about 'AI' at least in my perception. Of course there may be exceptions (in both commenters and threads).