• Someplaceunknown@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    173
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    “LLMs such as they are, will become a commodity; price wars will keep revenue low. Given the cost of chips, profits will be elusive,” Marcus predicts. “When everyone realizes this, the financial bubble may burst quickly.”

    Please let this happen

  • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    155
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    I wish just once we could have some kind of tech innovation without a bunch of douchebag techbros thinking it’s going to solve all the world’s problems with no side effects while they get super rich off it.

    • ohwhatfollyisman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      2 days ago

      … bunch of douchebag techbros thinking it’s going to solve all the world’s problems with no side effects…

      one doesn’t imagine any of them even remotely thinks a technological panacaea is feasible.

      … while they get super rich off it.

      because they’re only focusing on this.

      • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Oh they definitely exist. At a high level the bullshit is driven by malicious greed, but there are also people who are naive and ignorant and hopeful enough to hear that drivel and truly believe in it.

        Like when Microsoft shoves GPT4 into notepad.exe. Obviously a terrible terrible product from a UX/CX perspective. But also, extremely expensive for Microsoft right? They don’t gain anything by stuffing their products with useless annoying features that eat expensive cloud compute like a kid eats candy. That only happens because their management people truly believe, honest to god, that this is a sound business strategy, which would only be the case if they are completely misunderstanding what GPT4 is and could be and actually think that future improvements would be so great that there is a path to mass monetization somehow.

        • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 days ago

          That’s not what’s happening here. Microsoft management are well aware that AI isn’t making them any money, but the company made a multi billion dollar bet on the idea that it would, and now they have to convince shareholders that they didn’t epicly fuck up. Shoving AI into stuff like notepad is basically about artificially inflating “consumer uptake” numbers that they can then show to credulous investors to suggest that any day now this whole thing is going to explode into an absolute tidal wave of growth, so you’d better buy more stock right now, better not miss out.

        • peopleproblems@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yeah my management was all gungho about exploiting AI to do all sorts of stuff.

          Like read. Not generative AI crap, but read. They came to us and said quite literally: “how can we use something like ChatGPT and make it read.”

          I don’t know who or how they convinced them to use something that wasn’t generative AI, but it did convince me that managers think someone being convincing and confident is correct all the time.

        • rumba@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          No no, I disagree I think that shoving AI into all these apps is a solid plan on their behalf. People are going to stop recall and shut it off. So instead they put AI components into every app, It now has the right to overview everything you’re doing and every app collects data on you sending it home to update their personalized models for you so they can better sell you products.

        • Alphane Moon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          I think Andreessen is lying and the “techno optimist manifesto” is a ruse for PR.

          a16z has been involved in various crypto pump and dumps. They are smart enough to know that something like “play to earn” is not sustainable and always devolves into a pyramid scheme. Doesn’t stop them from getting in early and dumping worthless tokens on the marks.

          The manifesto honestly reads like it was written by a teenager. The style, the tone, the excessive quotes from economists. This is pretty typical stuff for American oligarch polemics, no?

  • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    No shit. This was obvious from day one. This was never AGI, and was never going to be AGI.

    Institutional investors saw an opportunity to make a shit ton of money and pumped it up as if it was world changing. They’ll dump it like they always do, it will crash, and they’ll make billions in the process with absolutely no negative repercussions.

    • metaStatic@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      2 days ago

      Turns out AI isn’t real and has no fidelity.

      Machine learning could be the basis of AI but is anyone even working on that when all the money is in LLMs?

      • Joeffect@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        2 days ago

        I’m not an expert, but the whole basis of LLM not actually understanding words, just the likelihood of what word comes next basically seems like it’s not going to help progress it to the next level… Like to be an artificial general intelligence shouldn’t it know what words are?

        I feel like this path is taking a brick and trying to fit it into a keyhole…

        • metaStatic@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          learning is the basis of all known intelligence. LLMs have learned something very specific, AGI would need to be built by generalising the core functionality of learning not as an outgrowth of fully formed LLMs.

          and yes the current approach is very much using a brick to open a lock and that’s why it’s … ahem … hit a brick wall.

          • Joeffect@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Yeah, 20 something years ago when I was trying to learn PHP of all things, I really wanted to make a chat bot that could learn what words are… I barely got anywhere but I was trying to program the understanding of sentence structure and feeding it a dictionary of words… My goal was to have it output something on its own …

            I see these things become less resource intensive and hopefully running not on some random server…

            I found the files… It was closer to 15 years ago…

        • Pennomi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Right, so AIs don’t really know what words are. All they see are tokens. The tokens could be words and letters, but they could also be image/video features, audio waveforms, or anything else.

  • Greg Clarke@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    largely based on the notion that LLMs will, with continued scaling, become artificial general intelligence

    Who said that LLMs were going to become AGI? LLMs as part of an AGI system makes sense but not LLMs alone becoming AGI. Only articles and blog posts from people who didn’t understand the technology were making those claims. Which helped feed the hype.

    I 100% agree that we’re going to see an AI market correction. It’s going to take a lot of hard human work to achieve the real value of LLMs. The hype is distracting from the real valuable and interesting work.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Someone in here has once linked me a scientific article about how today’s “AI” are basically one level below what they need to be anything like an AI. A bit like the difference between exponent and Ackermann function, but I really forgot what that was all about.

      • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        LLMs are AI. There’s a common misconception about what ‘AI’ actually means. Many people equate AI with the advanced, human-like intelligence depicted in sci-fi - like HAL 9000, JARVIS, Ava, Mother, Samantha, Skynet, and GERTY. These systems represent a type of AI called AGI (Artificial General Intelligence), designed to perform a wide range of tasks and demonstrate a form of general intelligence similar to humans.

        However, AI itself doesn’t imply general intelligence. Even something as simple as a chess-playing robot qualifies as AI. Although it’s a narrow AI, excelling in just one task, it still fits within the AI category. So, AI is a very broad term that covers everything from highly specialized systems to the type of advanced, adaptable intelligence that we often imagine. Think of it like the term ‘plants,’ which includes everything from grass to towering redwoods - each different, but all fitting within the same category.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          I know those terms. I wanted to edit it, but was too lazy. You still did understand what I meant, right?

          We don’t call a shell script “AI” after all, and we do call those models that, while for your definition there shouldn’t be any difference.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    Good. I look forward to all these idiots finally accepting that they drastically misunderstood what LLMs actually are and are not. I know their idiotic brains are only able to understand simple concepts like “line must go up” and follow them like religious tenants though so I’m sure they’ll waste everyone’s time and increase enshitification with some other new bullshit once they quietly remove their broken (and unprofitable) AI from stuff.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    2 days ago

    “The economics are likely to be grim,” Marcus wrote on his Substack. “Sky high valuation of companies like OpenAI and Microsoft are largely based on the notion that LLMs will, with continued scaling, become artificial general intelligence.”

    “As I have always warned,” he added, “that’s just a fantasy.”

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Even Zuckerberg admits that trying to scale LLMs larger doesn’t work because the energy and compute requirements go up exponentially. There must exist a different architecture that is more efficient, since the meat computers in our skulls are hella efficient in comparison.

      Once we figure that architecture out though, it’s very likely we will be able to surpass biological efficiency like we have in many industries.

      • RogueBanana@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        That’s a bad analogy. We weren’t able to surpass biological efficiency in industry sector because we figured out human anatomy and how to improve it. It’s simply alternative ways to produce force like electricity and motors which had absolutely no relation to how muscles works.

        I imagine it would be the same for computers, simply another, better method to achieve something but it’s so uncertain that it’s barely worth discussing about.

        • Pennomi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          Of course! It’s not like animals have jet engines!

          Human brains are merely the proof that such energy efficiencies are possible for intelligence. It’s likely we can match or go far beyond that, probably not by emulating biology directly. (Though we certainly may use it as inspiration while we figure out the underlying principles.)

  • LavenderDay3544@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    AI was 99% a fad. Besides OpenAI and Nvidia, none of the other corporations bullshitting about AI have made anything remotely useful using it.

    • intelisense@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Nvidia made money, but I’ve not seen OpenAI do anything useful, and they are not even profitable.

      • LavenderDay3544@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        ChatGPT is basically the best LLM of its kind. As for Nvidia I’m not talking about hardware I’m talking about all of the models it’s trained to do everything from DLSS and ACE to creating virtual characters that can converse and respond naturally to a human being.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I would say LLMs specifically are in that ball park. Things like machine vision have been boringly productive and relatively un hyped.

      There’s certainly some utility to LLMs, but it’s hard to see through all the crazy over estimations and being shoved everywhere by grifters.

  • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    I am so tired of the ai hype and hate. Please give me my gen art interest back please just make it obscure again to program art I beg of you

    • ApatheticCactus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      I have to do similar things when it comes to ‘raytracing’. It meant one thing, and then a company comes along and calls something sorta similar the same thing, then everyone has these ideas of what it should be vs. what it actually is doing. Then later, a better version comes out that nearly matches the original term, but there’s already a negative hype because it launched half baked and misnamed. Now they have to name the original thing something new new to market it because they destroyed the original name with a bad label and half baked product.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      He is writing about LLM mainly, and that is absolutely AI, it’s just not strong AI or general AI (AGI).
      You can’t invent your own meaning for existing established terms.

      • cygnus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        LLMs are AI in the same way that the lane assist on my car is AI. Tech companies, however, very carefully and deliberately play up LLMs as being AGI or close to it. See for example toe convenient fear-mongering over the “risks” of AI, as though ChatGPT will become Skynet.

        • GreyBeard@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          LLMs are AI as it is defined in Computer Science, not SciFi. And the lane assist on your car might also be, although it may just be a well tuned PID for all I know.

        • Pennomi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          You should research the definition of AI then. Even the A* pathfinding algorithm was historically considered AI. It’s a remarkably broad field.

  • Decker108@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Nice, looking forward to it! So much money and time wasted on pipe dreams and hype. We need to get back to some actually useful innovation.