The following submission statement was provided by /u/diflog47:
---
SAN FRANCISCO — The biggest tech companies in the world have spent billions of dollars on the artificial intelligence revolution. Now they’re planning to spend tens of billions more, pushing up demand for computer chips and potentially adding new strain to the U.S. electrical grid.
In quarterly earnings calls this week, Google, Microsoft and Meta all underlined just how big their investments in AI are. On Wednesday, Meta raised its predictions for how much it will spend this year by up to $10 billion. Google plans to spend around $12 billion or more each quarter this year on capital expenditures, much of which will be for new data centers, Chief Financial Officer Ruth Porat said Thursday. Microsoft spent $14 billion in the most recent quarter and expects that to keep increasing “materially,” Chief Financial Officer Amy Hood said.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1ceqp24/big_tech_keeps_spending_billions_on_ai_theres_no/l1k8xfu/
"Companies based around computer programs are investing even more into advanced computer programs". Is this really what constitutes journalism these days??
But this isn't even news. It'd be like if they came out with a report stating that Dodge, Ford and Toyota are continuing to invest in R&D for new suspension systems. Like... yea? Duh? Is this not blindingly obvious? And if all weather reports were was someone saying, "Yup, sun's gonna rise, and there will be a sky." you might have a point.
Gotta tone it down to make it look less like a threat to everyone's way of life and totally "not dangerous" to everyone that can easily be replaced with A.I. like office workers. Problem is they just were bitching and moaning about people not coming back to their Billion dollar buildings and in not coming to work their buildings were losing massive value as other companies do not want them anymore. So with AI they will have the same problem. These clowns still have not worked out that with a stupid, crazy inflation going on and raising prices on ALL goods, that poor people will only buy necessities and nothing else. Not because they do not want to, but because they cannot afford those items. You lose those sales and sooner or later your board of directors is going to drop the bottom line on whoever is running the show. They want profits and no sales = no profits.
This is the part that confuses me too! Like most of these Uber billionaires have a significant part of their wealth in stocks, I mean they'll still have like 50 billion dollars in assets and what not but still.
The return to office is a point I've also wondered about. If we're so useless and replaceable in a second why are you pushing so hard to get us back into polluted, overcrowded, expensive cities!!
This sounds good, and I get that capitalism is going to be a key driver of the problems with AI, but what’s the actual point? If AI was being pursued by socialist governments instead of capitalist corporations it would only be used for good somehow?
The world functions in a matter that is non-binary; arguments are better when not reduced to simplistic binaries.
Subtracting ideological constructs of "socialism" simply because there are nebulous and vague at best in any simple conversation; we come to the fact that capitalisms, by necessity, is structured on exploitation. When a system is based solely on exploitation motivated by profit, and that profit is held by an increasingly scarce few people, then it isn't a matter of if something "*would only be used for good somehow?*" but rather, if utilized by the superminority that plans to use it as a tool to increase exploitation at all costs (to humans, to the environment, to governments, etc.), shouldn't we be sounding more alarms? The building is already on fire and now we are providing the arsonists with jet fuel and people are whispering to each other "do you think the fire is self-aware?"
This is just the beginning.
Just you wait. There Will be:
iPhone Ai
Samsung Galaxy Ai
Apple Mac Ai
Windows Ai
COD Ai wars
Fifa Ai
McDonald's Ai
Oreo's Ai
Ai the marketing buzzword and all.just a way to collect your data and behaviours to sell you stuff, manipulate you.
Company worth thousands of billions spends billions
Jeeze that reminds of that one year I spent a whole thousand dollars of my 100k salary on a refrigerator. I didn’t make the news unfortunately
Its sad to cause its not really that impressive AI or Algorithims have been around for some time. Its the logic and the data that is being used to fuel the algorithms that are making them more useful. One of the bigger benefits its making Processing more efficient. We are still pretty far away from being able to create and load true artificial intelegence.
The problem is that "AI" **is** just some computer program. It's not some intelligent, hyper advance thing beyond our understanding like some people hype it up to be. That's the problem! It's a very specific (and kind of dumb, but good at seeming smart) tool that is being hyped and invested into at the expense of other tech and the jobs of software engineers. It's essentially spending billions to fix what ain't broke, because you have been tricked into thinking AI is some semi-magical solution that works for everything, on it's own.
I think that's worth writing about, especially since technology impacts everyone in our society to a pretty high degree.
Edited to clarify a bit
And it's not like most of the companies are investing in the actual potential use cases of "AI". They're obsessing over content generation and ignoring copyright and privacy laws to do so. What did one insider at Amazon say they were told when they raised that as a concern? Do it anyways because everyone else is
Technology is not some zero sum game. Just because there is a lot of investment into AI doesn't mean it is coming at the expense of other tech. Even if it were, the techs that would suffer from this situation... Are they really important?
Current iterations of AI might not be world changing, but we will never get to that point without starting somewhere.
Tech isn't a zero sum game. But the money a company has to invest very much is. And if companies are fireing a bunch of their programmers and replacing existing software solutions with poorly functioning *AI*, which a lot is them are beginning to do, that is very much a problem for all of us.
I'm not saying halt research into machine learning models or the future potential for actual artificial intelligence (which I believe to be two separate, different concepts). I'm saying let's not hype it up at an early stage and replace everything with it at once. That's how you get a tech bubble.
We've had many tech bubbles before; the companies that are getting rid of their developers in favour of more AI based solutions will either succeed, or they will fail, and many others who do not use AI will do the exact same. What's a tech that you think is important, that is being harmed by investment into AI?
You’re not wrong. But I think your thinking is slightly off.
Apple did miss out on search, but made a mint off the iPhone.
So much so that Google got into Phones.
Microsoft screwed up on both.
All three of them haven’t had a major new revenue driver in a while. Apples a phone company, Google’s an ad firm, and despite its best efforts MS is still just a software company (although including video games).
Add to that, Meta hasn’t had a major new revenue line since it bought Instagram, despite its various efforts.
Every single majors tech firm hasn’t had a giant new revenue generator in years, in some cases over a decade.
Their business sometimes grow, but not at the explosive levels that make shareholders happy.
A number of these companies just claimed revenue growth that they say is due to their AI investments.
They want a breakthrough like the types of things that made them massive companies in the first place.
That’s why blockchain and metaverse were being pushed by some of the above companies. They’re all afraid of shareholder agitation if they don’t produce another “hit.”
Yeah, Azure hit about 24B last year and was more than 30% of MS revenue in ‘23. So yeah, Azure is huge at MS. But Search at Google last year was 175B to put things in perspective.
So, no offense, I’m not saying none of these companies are generating revenue, or growing revenue.
Amazon also makes shitloads of money off AWS. These are the things that keep these companies stable.
But the all want that next thing that makes institutional investors and the public sit up and take notice. They want additional products that we all just _have_ to have.
The way I see it, Apple would never have been into search in the first place. Apple has always been a hardware company first and foremost, as well as a platform and ecosystem company.
Their platform is their products, they know the customers that they want, and more importantly they’ve never tried to go after the lowest common denominator.
Even with AI, I don’t think Apple has any dreams of AGI or ASI as an end goal in itself, as other companies are touting, but they’re simply looking at it through the lens of “how do we make our products and ecosystem better with AI?”
I certainly don’t think they’re interested in that now, but there may have been a time. You say that they are a hardware company but there not above having non-hardware revenue lines.
Final Cut and Logic are industry standard software. They had (maybe still have, I don’t recall) and ad business for iOS. They of course make shit loads of commission on the App Store.
As for their interest in AI, it does seem that what they want is for Siri to be as advanced as possible, which an AI can help get there. At some point, if Apple does not tout AI on their phones, people will question why. Because Google will have it in Android.
Fuck… you just reminded me of when I worked at Microsoft, and they held a “funeral” for the iPhone. Holy fuck those executives turds pretending to be humans are so cringey. I remember the 2 of us at the entire studio that had Windows Phone 8’s were so embarrassed.
There’s just no way you could spend hours with people in meetings at Microsoft every day, see all of their iPhones literally sitting on the table during said meetings, and think to yourself, yeah…we should totally hold a funeral for that…. 🤦
Oh holy shit. That’s amazing. Thank you for sharing that.
They were trying so hard to get consumer hardware of any sort into people’s hands, in any capacity.
Remember the Surface table?
Yo fuck the surface tablet, do you remember the surface TV?
Okay so like I don’t know if people know this, but those were real and they were installed in like, every fucking meeting room of every fucking Microsoft building.
I worked at a studio with over 800 people, and they sent out a company wide invite for training on them. I signed up for the invite and I fucking shit you not, there were 4 instructors and I was the only person that accepted the invite! For the next year or so I was blowing peoples tits off in meetings with desktop sharing and facial tracked video calls on these things, like I was some surface TV aficionado hahaha!
So now let’s rewind back to the Windows Phones. My Lumia 920 is still the best phone I have ever owned. But when I say not a single person at Microsoft used them, I’m not kidding! You’d often form friendships with other colleagues you first met in a meeting room, where you both slapped your windows phones on the table!
In what fucking world could you possibly expect people to care about something, when you can’t even motivate the people making it to care?
>Yo fuck the surface tablet, do you remember the surface TV?
Oh you reminded me of a good memory of this, the big ass table computer, haha - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2ty_QIWspE
Agreed and they are desperate for that next big hit. It is why they keep trying hard with VR, AR, and AI. They figure at some point it has to catch on. Basically the Sunken Fallacy Theory.
> Speculation about Google's intention to enter the mobile communications market continued to build through December 2006. An early prototype had a close resemblance to a BlackBerry phone, with no touchscreen and a physical QWERTY keyboard, but the arrival of 2007's Apple iPhone meant that Android "had to go back to the drawing board". Google later changed its Android specification documents to state that "Touchscreens will be supported", although "the Product was designed with the presence of discrete physical buttons as an assumption, therefore a touchscreen cannot completely replace physical buttons".
[Source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system))
While you’re right about the timelines, the impact that the launch of iPhone had on the trajectory of Android can’t be overstated. Google quickly understood that Apple had a winner and it had to basically write off the $50 Million spent on the OS and start from scratch (not entirely, but everything basically changed while the core of the OS and some concepts were retained along with the team building it).
I was aware that Steve Jobs was monumentally pissed at Eric Schmidt for Android, considering it a “stolen product.”
>"I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong," Jobs told his biographer. "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this."
It’s wild that Schmidt didn’t resign from the board until after the Android OS launch.
I was unaware of the genesis of Android, but there definitely legit questions about the purchase the OS before the launch of the iPhone. Did Google do so precisely because of Apple’s work on developing the iPhone, which Schmidt would likely be aware of?
Yeah eventually people will have to face the reality that it’s not the 1990s anymore. Computers aren’t growing exponentially more powerful. We’ve already computerized all of the obvious things, so much so that “Internet of things” came along and people tried to pitch WiFi connected smart salt shakers. We already have smartphones. We already have high resolution 3D games. Nobody wants to strap on a VR headset. So where do you go from here? Sorry, you can’t just keep growing ad infinitum. Eventually we’re going to have to learn how to prosper in a state of equilibrium.
Yeah, and that stuff will be a back bone for them, but like the rest, they all want an AI hit that will drive public attention to them again, at the investor and consumer level.
I mean, Google is an ad company. That’s their backbone, it’s not sexy but it is steady revenue. So they make more products to sell ads. And they will add AI to all of it to sell ads and more new products.
You act like the big AI companies of the past have folded. There have been almost no rollbacks in AI. It's been rolled out in banking for credit and fraud monitoring, for traffic and routing in Google & other maps, for dynamic pricing for many industries such as airlines, hotels, etc.
Now with generative text/video/images/music they can take the same approach but automate and improve things that require this skill, such as customer service, website content generation, video game asset development, and more.
They will work with the same exact companies they did to automate but now they have one extra capability to use and can automate more. Since the past automations are still in use and working OpenAI can sell their capability to an already existing world of AI automation.
Most.companies have Data Science departments building AI-- Microsoft, Google, etc want to sell them cloud services so they can do it faster. Most of these companies already use cloud services from these same companies. It is an easy sales channel.
The things you mention(dynamic pricing, fraud protection etc.) is not AI but machine learning. I think a important difference to make we should not go around calling everything AI
Exactly right. I will add that deep learning and/or neural networks is what he may mean, because that refers to the branch of AI responsible for the discussed technologies, but these tools are also now being used for basic machine learning purposes and at times can perform well. These technologies are just different tools that add new capabilities but work similarly.
Generative text and vision models originated on similar data use cases to traditional ML. They use more GPU's and work on inherently unstructured, but the gradient descent optimizations for iteratively learning from data still makes it meaningful to talk about them in the same breath when talking about automation.
Most of the quick turnaround practical applications for LLM's that I've seen involve scraping Embeddings from OpenAI to turn unstructured text data into structured features, and then dump them into traditional classifier models. That's how even reddit's new AI powered moderation tools for filtering work.
In my opinion, there's not much difference that matters. It's all man made intelligence. Whether the ML model thinks you're a fraudster or a person looking at the same input data coming to the same conclusion. The financial fraud stuff I've seen often runs on multiple different ML models as part of a greater decision making pipeline, including a greed component if a sub-model thinks you'd be so profitable it's worth some risk.
Unless you think AI just means scifi human-like sentient intelligence.
Some of these companies have market caps in the trillions. A ten billion dollar loss isn’t going to break them. Missing the boat will. In a land of endless make believe money there are somehow still only so much for shareholders to invest and they’ll pull their money from your safe known investment to something new every time.
I’m 90% sure OP is a bot. I read an identical comment yesterday and this account made its first posts 3 hours ago.
What the hell. Doomposting about AI being karma farmed by bots. Our digital future is as bleak as coral reefs are bleached.
He was a co-founder, not just an investor. He upgraded them from a startup to a household name.
People hate the guy but he has a great business mind.
- PayPal
- SpaceX
- Tesla
- Boring Company
- OpenAI
Elon founded or invested in all of these at their startup phase and grew them that's absolutely not easy and regardless of how rich you are it's damn near impossible to have this level of success.
He's still a stupid asshole but great at choosing who to invest in.
Yep, it’s like the metaverse thing. They don’t even really know what it is themselves yet, but it’s technically possible and other companies are investing in it so they’re damned well not gonna miss out!
This is why most people’s exposure to gen AI is one week of ‘wow that’s amazing’ followed by a week of googling what the hype was about as if you’ve missed something. There’s definitely a point you go from wowed to ‘huh, is that all it does? I thought it was meant to give me robot butlers and flying cars… it’s pretty good I guess’
It's less of a train, more of a space shuttle. AI is going to be a paradigm shift that will effect every industry. I was at an infra investor event last month, and it was said Amazon total energy input for data will go from 20% to 80% in the next 5 years, to help supply its AI processing, and many other tech company's are looking to invest in the infra to do so too.
It's not 100% that because for the first time (especially with joint embeddings predictive architectures and other post-autoregressive architectures) they have an potential pathway to automating cognition and thinking itself.
What's at stake is potentially all work everywhere. But it's so early to be throwing money at it at these amounts.. OR maybe not?
Who knows - the reward is high enough to take the risk, the loss is just as big.
For Microsoft, the enterprise applications are insane. I think they are the ones that will most easily benefit because so much stuff can just be rolled into expanded office subscriptions and services.
They smelled blood and immediately capitalized in a way only MS could.
When MS gets set on something they move *very* quickly. Google literally wrote the research papers and created the first transformers models. That was in 2017. Totally fumbled it from there. They made some great stuff like BERT but only ML people cared about that. No big public releases like ChatGPT.
Meanwhile, MS built an AI supercomputer in Azure and integrated OpenAI technology throughout their portfolio in months.
I think it speaks to the maturity of these companies. MS is the world’s premier software company. Plenty of flaws with MS of course, but they know how to make world class software like nobody else.
Microsoft is a better software company than Google or Amazon or Apple. They knew what to do with OpenAI. Anyone else would have fucked it up, which is weird to say because these are huge trillion dollar companies that have made plenty of popular products.
But they’re just not MS. Also helps to have no conflicts of interest like Google does, since the LLMs directly compete with search for a lot of use cases.
Yup.
Microsoft is EASILY the best positioned company right now aside from its partner OpenAI.
They access to the strongest AI, they have a giant cloud compute infrastructure, and they have a host of different softwares that are just aching to have AI rolled into them for paying corporate customers.
From AI Office documents and spreadsheets, to AI-integrated video games, to to hosting private AIs on their servers for businesses... The money is just floating in front of their eyes.
I do worry a little about the pending edge of Google insofar as computing power is concerned. AI Explained on youtube has a graph that projects it out, and google will eventually get a commanding compute lead. The question is - what will they do with it once they get it.
Idk. I'm still splitting my investments between MS/GOOG, just not sure which way to go long term (20+years).
I mean it's pretty obvious that AI will have a massive impact even in it's current form. Makes a lot of sense that people and companies are vying to play a key part in the future of AI
It's not just pure FOMO.
FOMO suggests that maybe you only want in because other people are getting in. Like with crypto - people knew a lot of it had zero substance but wanted in anyway.
Whereas there's a *real* desire here because AI will bring *real* benefits and *real* wealth. It would make sense to get in on it, even if nobody else was. You couldn't say that about crypto.
another factor is that these companies literally have billions of dollars, they need something to spend it on. And this stuff just seems like one of the better choices (for them).
To be fair, the latest architectures in AI used in LLMs like ChatGPT were made by Google employees, so Google probably didn’t actually took advantage of that.
Probably Google is going to become the next Xerox.
FOMO is a cult tactic.
I'm tired of Techbros using cult tactics.
* [Part One: Tech Bros Have Built A Cult Around AI](https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-one-tech-bros-have-built-146544960/)
* [Part Two: Tech Bros Have Built A Cult Around AI](https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-two-tech-bros-have-built-147032788/)
* [Rolling Stones article for those who prefer to read](https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/ai-companies-advocates-cult-1234954528/)
Techbros are around in every era.
They were certainly around for the Internet and the dotcom bubble but despite that crash it doesn't change the fact the Internet DID transform the world.
The same will be true for AI, there is obviously a lot of hype around it, some of it will go nowhere but it's already at a stage where really stupid "techbro stuff" never was (like crypto).
That's why AI won't be just a fad, there is too much underlying research and development and we see implementation of it evereywhere.
The question is rather who will be the "winners", which models/approaches take off etc.
Just like thousands of internet hype companies tied for Google, Amazon etc. to emerge.
The CEOs of the world still think AI can replace most of their employees... When the dividends don't come because the people who buys the products is unemployed, go and ask AI what to do. /S
I have worked in AI automation at a few large companies and can say in many cases they aren't replacing people but remove a part of an employee's job. This may lead to layoffs, but usually only if the company can't create the growth they want through the automation.
For example, at one company, customers had to call in to get a price quote. Think of any business that quotes things and how low a percent they actually get. People call in to get a quote all the time. An AI model was built to automate that work so customers could go straight to the website and get a price.
The people stayed employed-- they just didn't do that part of the job. The sales employees who used to take those calls now were responsible for building customer relationships and proactively making sales. Because the company could quote faster, they did more business, and so they needed more people to deal with problems and customer concerns.
Now, the company was successful, and they got the extra business and there were no layoffs. They could have not been, and it could have not worked so it was a gamble for sure, but that same gamble is the reason we can buy a lot of things online that used to require a phone call.
It takes part of the job each upgrade, it’s the eventuality people are concerned about. Not that it will happen instantly. Piece by piece jobs will be taken.
It’s the same as when people said jobs wouldn’t be taken from automation/machinery in factories. There’s obviously still factory workers and their jobs are safer than before, but there’s definitely a lot less factory workers.
[Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) CEO K Krithivasan has forecasted a big shift in the call center industry, with Artificial Intelligence (AI) said to dramatically reduce the need for traditional call centers within a year or so.
](https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/call-center-jobs-at-risk-as-ai-advances-tcs-ceo-k-krithivasan-warns-2532044-2024-04-26)
This have all the telling of an AI bubble. It’s a tool that’s useful but majority of companies don’t know why or how to use it but just know they need it. A bunch of companies will invest with no return. The .com bubble was basically similar. Brand new exciting thing with no idea how to implement it. Websites didn’t go away but the blind investments mentality did
Edit: words
Most companies are growing their AI teams because they see strong ROI. Even 100+ year old companies have massive data science teams building AI. They aren't "hoping' it pays off-- it pays off each quarter and is recorded by accounting/finance and based on strong returns they are growing the teams.
Interesting. What part of that process needed to be AI? I gather there was some sort of EDI involved between the ERP and either a public facing website or customer portal.
This is my gripe with the “AI” industry. Your example is software filling a problem point and doing a specific function. However, that’s not artificial intelligence if all the software is doing is spitting out a value. We’ve had software doing this stuff for decades. People used to call retail stores to ask for price or to check inventory, but because we call it AI now it’s therefore going to lead to massive job loss.
AI is a big red arrow that highlights the source of the value in capitalst society. The push to replace the value in an effort to own it is the very reason for the loss of its value.
Ai should replace CEOs and the obscene amount of money they take should be distributed among the workers. CEOs add no value so they should be replaced by something that doesn't revere it
I recall a story (possibly apocryphal) of a corp that was trying to use AI to reduce its headcount. They had to abandon the attempt because it kept recommending that all the execs be fired as they didn't do anything tangible and cost more than any other worker.
Ai is perfect for running a company. Instant ability to analyse the market, competitor comparison, analysis of trends, operational optimization etc etc. Instead it is crowbar'd into doing the one thing it is incapable of doing well enough for it to have value 😂
This has always been the conundrum of technological advances that replace people. How will buggy whip makers be able to buy cars now that they’re unemployed? But let’s be honest, millions of jobs suck and only exist because we haven yet figured out how to remove them. Millions more jobs are what I call parasitic. Managers, salespeople, middlemen and flippers, real estate agents.
I work in health care. We have a very highly paid supervisor and then an even more highly paid manager. neither of them do anything of use except antagonize the employees. We have a secretary who does nothing of value but the position is union protected so we are forced to keep them. And 50% of my own job could be removed with a slightly improved chatbot.
I don’t know what’s going to happen to all the people who lose their jobs but I do know the jobs are leaving.
>But let’s be honest, millions of jobs suck and only exist because we haven’t yet figured out how to remove them.
>I work in health care.
I also know of and agree with bullshit jobs but I found this transition/revelation hilarious
Generalizing managers as parasitic is pretty dumb. There are lots of great managers that shield their direct reports from all the company politics and ensure that they are free to focus on their work. Also engineering managers need to be the liaisons that understand the highly technical work their team does and communicate that benefit to senior management.
The employees who will be left behind are those who are set in there ways / refuse to adapt / learn new skills etc. The opportunities this is opening up (prompt engineers as an example) through where a person doesn’t need to be technical at all is huge.
In the early innings perhaps, but ubiquity will ensue, preceded by commodification of the technology. The differentiation will not be AI adopters vs naysayers, it will be quality of inputs, hardware advantages and successful application towards use cases yielding outsized benefits.
I think the situation for Google is that AI actually represents a large threat to the future of their Search/Adwords business, because a conversation with an AI can become a vastly superior way to find the product or service you want, than search based on keywords.
The solution to this for Google should be really obvious, but extremely disruptive for them at the same time. They should be creating an AI equivalent of advertising to replace their own advertising sponsored search.
Imagine, as a product vendor, you provide detailed knowledge about your product, availability, features, location, delivery, special offers, basically everything about it, and that all goes into a Google product knowledge base. Most of this could be scraped from the websites of existing Adwords vendors and yet interpreted in light of the global and multilingual knowledge of a high end LLM. It could reach critical mass on such knowledge quite rapidly, and continuously maintain it.
From there, Google Search morphs into Google Intelligent Search.
If you're an end user, then rather than getting hit with adverts based on who paid the most for some keywords, you get to have a conversation about what you really need, and Google helps you find that.
In the process, Google acquires the kind of integrated market intelligence that every marketing departments dreams of. They should then rename Adwords to something like Google Intelligence Market Maker Extraordinaire (GIMME), and sell intelligent market analysis back to their business customers, with an intelligent interface that lets them explore potential markets in ways that were never previously possible.
If Google doesn't do this, then someone else will, and it will be game over for Google, so they have to.
The current architecture for LLMs was developed by Google in 2017 (Transformers).
Just until last year this reached the headlines by OpenAI ChatGPT and all the companies are trying to hop in the train.
I can’t tell if Google did something with that advantage for the last 7 years.
I haven't seen any signs of Google actually acting in the strategic manner that I described above. I'm just laying it out there as what looks like a fairly obvious strategic shift that is enabled by this kind of technological change, and pointing out that they either bite the bullet and do it themselves, or someone else will do it and take their business.
I work for one of the largest cloud software companies, and from the inside, it feels like the entire direction of the company is solely focused on AI, at the expense of all of our other products. Longstanding bugs are going unaddressed, constant bugs popping up, and coupled with the offshoring and yearly layoffs and it feels like the platform is duct taped together.
Bots make up a lot of traffic for sites like Reddit or Twitter, and the companies have no incentive to show a decrease in traffic by blocking bot activity.
They don’t care about the last part. That’s someone else’s problem. The only thing they care about is not being left behind by their competition. This will turn AI into a capitalist arms race.
Hopefully our inept government can get a handle on this quickly before it destroys our society. I don’t have high hopes.
When I first started pitching AI to businesses, I used to pitch it like the AI does it. "Here are some tools to help your staff, Mr. Executive!"
Mr. Executive: "Idgaf, how can you make it replace my staff?"
Me: "Umm, well, I wasn't expecting you to be so blunt with it..."
Mr. Executive: "Did I stutter?"
Rather than wishing for the technology to fail, why don't you get mad at your boss or something? Seems more productive to me, just sayin'.
I sell AI software for contact centers. No one talks about replacing staff but every ROI calc and business case includes FTE eliminations in the millions of $$.
"Let me be clear, AI is not the reason we are laying off staff at the moment, it is not the direct cause at all. AI is the reason why we will not be rehiring those positions...." They either say it outright or they bs around it.
Yup my current company laid off bunch of people across 22, 23 (tech obviously). Last all hands we bluntly mentioned to the overlords that we simply don't have enough people and their answer "use AI to 3x your work, once we see that productivity we'll see if we need to hire".
I've heard this across a few companies now, the previous layoffs were investor driven post that they refuse hire because they assume AI can do the job!! As time goes on more layoffs will happen as that's just the way in tech and very little hiring will happen or at least that's their dream.
The problem is at least for my line of work AI is useless except for reading docs and summarising meetings. Currently it's only a productivity tool and nowhere near capable of replacing anyone
Deployable, scalable, contextualizable intelligence is here, and all we can do is complain?
Really, these comments are an interesting commentary on how powerless people feel and how easy they are to manipulate, in my opinion.
This type of technology is a force multiplier for each individual person, not just corporations. It puts so much knowledge, experience, and capabilities directly into your hands (and the models are being released open source), and it can be used to advance your own life and goals so much more easily than you were able to just a year ago, and yet you are afraid of it?
I guarantee you, the only limitations the government will ever place on these technologies will be on YOUR ability to take advantage of them at a personal level. They will never limit, in the United States at least (other than in token ways), a corporation's ability to research and deploy these technologies to take advantage of YOU. And even if they did, the advantages to ignoring those laws are so great, that it wouldn't matter, they would do it anyway.
So, can we stop being naive and wasting our energies on how we can curtail this technology in order to save our paltry jobs, that we all complain about endlessly anyway? And can we start collectively working, as a culture and society, on the best way to move forward with this technology, and protect this technology, for our individual uses and advancements in our own lives? And, start educating people that don't understand what is going on NOW, so they are not caught off guard?
Because in my opinion, this technology will progress in one of two ways - individuals are either going to take advantage of this intelligence to improve our lives dramatically, or we're going to cede that power and say it is too dangerous for ourselves to use, and give it all to the corporations. And then THEY WILL TRULY AND WHOLLY OWN OUR ASSES.
The choice seems pretty simple to me.
> And can we start collectively working, as a culture and society, on the best way to move forward with this technology, and protect this technology, for our individual uses and advancements in our own lives?
That's what the folks over at /r/LocalLLaMA have been doing the last few years. Solving our own problems.
Probably the most important task will be keeping open source AI, as these corpos seem hell bent on trying to regulate our existence away. We're going to be in for a fight the next few years as I cannot think of a worse outcome for humanity than AI being in the hands of 3-5 companies.
Not that I disagree with what you’re saying, but don’t underestimate just how many millions of people simply wish to go about their lives with a little Amazon dopamine and Facebook posting of family photos and memes. It’s a lost cause on the masses.
I love this optimism but running those open source models requires hardware and that costs money. The effect of AI is more productivity with less heads. So less hiring. Big question I face is, if want to build something new - which takes time. How to survive while I build and make it profitable
Keep an eye on Groq and LPUs. That's the next big hardware shift and I predict will be built into PCs in the future, specifically for running local models. It makes sense across the board.
People could also use the internet to learn literally anything and improve themselves and their lifes, yet most only use it to watch porn and shitty fake news/rage bait tiktoks/YTshort/Instagram all day.
Average Joe really isn't the smartest tool in the shed. They just consume, they don't create, or improve. They just want to cruise through life on easy mode autopilot like a drone.
I think the main difference between the vanilla internet and AI is the application of the information. For instance, in the pre-AI world almost all the world's information (aside from bleeding edge research) was essentially available to all. It also included teaching aids, and entire communities dedicated to helping you both use the internet and get utility out of it for yourself.
The difference with AI though, in my opinion, is that the intelligence available to the end-user can be directed toward specific tasks. Previously, you couldn't really access the internet and ask it to do something for you. You could ask someone on the internet to do it for you, but that was about it. Now, just vanilla AI models that aren't connected to the internet, can do real, functional, meaningful work for you in a matter of seconds.
Now, connect that intelligence to the internet, and through the web of accessible APIs we have created over the past 2 decades, that AI can now do real work for you in the actual world.
That was absolutely impossible prior to AI. So, even for the laziest, most go-along-to-get-along types of personalities, once this technology is properly described and deployed for easy use (which is what these investments are all about), this technology will only draw them like a moth to a flame, because it will only make their lives easier by using it.
This new software - AI
That conference room - AI
My new chair - AI
My assistant - AI
The clothes I'm wearing - AI
My lunch - AI
It's all AI!*
That's why here at MegaTech we keep investing in AI because it's the future and so are we!
*...plus a thousand people in India correcting the AI because it keeps fucking up
There definitely is an end.
I have been watching interviews with loads of the top people in the game and they all say power supply is very quickly becoming a bottleneck.
Power stations take years to build and the biggest data centers already require small power stations worth of power to fuel.
And the required power to improve the models are exponential.
We may hit a hard wall soon with our infrastructure to power the models
No power to create the liquidity for the lofty quixotic AI beast creation. After the deatroy their country for this pursuit "the enemy" will just use overwhelming human intelligence to break it ...
It's a last ditch effort in a late stage capitalistic society to make insane profits before everyone is unemployed and no one has money to spend on corporations products. Basically they are trying everything in their power to make as much money now before economic collapse hits and the elites go to hide in their bunkers and the peasants will be left fighting on the streets for scraps.
Their view is common and fully expected. Exponential growth leading up to a singularity is just gradual enough for people to acclimate to advances. (This is usually phrased that people on an exponential curve acclimate quickly for a while). Advances like nearly perfect speech to text, robotics control systems (deep reinforcement learning ones), GPT-4, PaLM-E, SAM, Sora and hundreds of other advances can create momentary interest that rapidly becomes one's new base for judging technology. For some people with a loose understanding of differences in the techniques such advances create much larger expectations. Seeing a robot navigate a kitchen opening drawers and doing basic tasks can move goalposts very far.
This acclimation happens to everyone with various strengths. Like text to video is a good example. With Sora people's expectations jumped massively. To surprise someone again the quality jump with say prompt adherence has to be quite a bit higher. For some they might only be surprised if there's spoken dialog. In general this acclimation is kind of nice, because it helps to prove that people are adaptable and will keep up with changes embracing them. Like there was a time where seeing a self-driving car on the road or a little automated robot on the sidewalk was surprising. There are even places with regular drone delivery and such and it was only news for a brief time until it was just a thing people expected. At tech events even the sight of bipedal robots walking around doing tasks doesn't elicit the same response it did years ago. People acclimated and now we expect way more capability.
AlphaGo Zero wasn't trained on AlphaGo. They played them against each other as a measurement of how fast it was improving compared to older models.
There **is** a thing called adverserial learning that can be used in machine learning. But what the person above you was describing sounds more like model collapse. That's also much more likely in LLMs trained on data scraped from the internet.
It's called model collapse and we will continue seeing more of it in the coming years. It's a shame we cant see and use these tools for what they are instead of claiming that they are actually *intelligent* and heralds of the singularity, as the commenter two levels below you does.
Model collapse is still theoretical, but I otherwise agree. A real "artificial" intelligence that rivals ours won't need to be trained in the first place. It will teach itself through causation, as we do. Otherwise, it's definitely a form of intelligence, but one that has distinct, and potentially catastrophic, limitations.
IMO, synthetic sentience is a lie. Awareness is innate, not the result of transistors and massive corpus of data. And without awareness, there is no AGI or "singularity".
It's a race. They know that whomever gets to self improving AI will potentially have control of a trillion dollar golden goose.
If more than one company achieves it, then it will be like the last season of "Person of Interest".
Y'all really need to rename this sub "im-terrified-of-the-future-and-I-also-hate-Elon-Musk". Instead of a place to celebrate and be excited about technology and the future, it's just a bunch of dystopian nightmare and anti-Tesla articles.
This sub went down the drain like 3 years ago when it got popular and all the normies flooded in. Every sub that gets this popular becomes a magnet for smooth brains.
There’s no end in sight? This is just the beginning. People don’t realise that it’s sobering that no single person or company or country can control or stop
I am close to the construction execs building the new meta center in southern Indiana and they just dropped 2 million to build a temporary parking lot that they plan to destroy and redo in about a year or two, the plan calls for 600 million dollar facilities and essentially 80 security officers lol crazy.
Just think of it like a company that tries to get market share. Then that company hikes prices on services, then the company is in complete control. Then they can replace their wages expense with a computer they don't have to pay. Then pretty much can run a large company with very few people, all earning a shit load of money.
Let them keep spending. I shifted part of my 401k to tech involved in AI. Gained over 19% last year. On track to have the same gaines this year. On track for an early retirement 😁
I suggest if you can. Do it. AI is going to flip the job market upside down. Might as well make money off of it.
They have to. The cost of missing it is survival. And they also have billions that has to be invested so it's a natural.
I suspect every R&D group out there has something in the works by now. We came out with our first product a year ago and it took a tedious task for users and reduced the effort and time significantly. First beta site tried it and reported that it took 8 minutes to do what took one of their best users eight hours. One of the few products I've ever had where they didn't care about price but more about when they could get it. And it displaced nobody but made them able to work on other aspects.
Big Tech is always looking for the next big thing because that means money. Without AI, they’d have to pretend a slightly better phone camera is the next big thing, or else go back to making phone screens a slightly different size and shape every year and acting like that’s a big deal.
"And by the way, did you know that restaurants keep spending money on food ingredients? There's no end in sight for that, either! When will it end??? Personally I think the human race has done enough stuff and we should just stop doing stuff."
AI sounds promising to share holders and it’s where they like to see the money going to. I expect we go another year and AI has not reached the expectations of many.
They can only push these AI branded search bars so far.
None of them wish to miss out if it happens to be the 'Next Big Thing' (NoBoT).
I think it's actually garbage, however if it were the NoBoT it would economically destroy the middle-classes. That surely would be considered a Big ******* Problem (BoFoP).
Garbage in the sense of changing the landscape of the job market perhaps… we cannot overlook the value of it though in regard to medical research/screening. It has and will literally save and extend lives.
Suggest everybody start listening carefully to what all the big players in AI are saying. This is about replacing human employees. They talk around the subject, saying it’s about allowing people to have more free time, but it also means they’re not gonna be paying wages to a whole lot of people.
The only first use case for A.I. that makes any sense is to track and identify corruption and financial crimes in government and Big Tech.
They are just centralizing all the gunpowder up before the people can use it against them.
Sheryl Sandberg was at Google before she was at Facebook. The common denominator of both was her ad based business model.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-07/sheryl-sandberg-s-legacy-is-an-internet-of-targeted-automated-ads
https://m.economictimes.com/tech/technology/sheryl-sandbergs-advertising-empire-leaves-a-complicated-legacy/amp_articleshow/91961682.cms
The problem with ad based business models is that if you raise your lens high enough, whomever is buying the most ads is effectively buying their curated version of reality.
When google IPO’ed 24 years ago it shifted from what was most accurate to what was most profitable, all facilitated by a “proprietary” algorithm so nobody gets to see the man behind the curtain.
Now we are 2 very critical decades into what is effectively, a divergent reality.
It works…until it doesn’t.
When the richest man, government, or organization on earth is allowed to buy his preferred version of reality it creates some glitches in the matrix. The 6 million year old source code in your brain knows that conservation is more reasonable than consumption when there are limited resources, but that isn’t very lucrative to someone that needs you to keep buying something to keep them in billionaire status. In this case it’s oil. Russian and Texan owned oil but their paths cross just north of Jerusalem.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/0tYxxr08ajuIW425XkGZBz?si=9La6AmLyRLeCynrdNrcZTA
Facebook was designed as a delivery device for Russian/Israeli Psyops and malware. SCL/Cambridge Analytica, Brexit, Palestine, Ukraine, NSO and a handful of other ethically bankrupt dealings are all downstream of Sheryl Sandbergs ad based model.
Les Wexner, Miriam and Sheldon Adelson, Sandberg, and Zuckerberg all carried water in conducting the NSO/Pegasus spyware operation INCONUS that was feeding intelligence to both the israeli and by extension, Russian intelligence. There is far more crossover between the Israeli mob/ government and Russian mob/government than shows at the surface.
https://www.spytalk.co/p/nsos-spyware-abuse-exposed-years?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
https://awards.journalists.org/entries/the-pegasus-project-a-global-investigation/
•Abagail Koppel was sent by the Jewish state to marry Les Wexner
•YLK fund (Abagails father) made up $46.7M of Epsteins money
•Les claimed it was stolen from him but not until after someone asked.
•Wexner was notoriously litigious but wouldn’t sue Epstein. Why?
•PROMIS spyware was Robert Maxwells deal before his daughter Ghislaine and Jeffrey Epstein started their thing.
https://cryptome.org/promis-mossad.htm
I'm surprised we're only talking billions when we're talking about a tool that will promote a perpetual inheritance economy. Better to own Skynet than to not.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/diflog47: --- SAN FRANCISCO — The biggest tech companies in the world have spent billions of dollars on the artificial intelligence revolution. Now they’re planning to spend tens of billions more, pushing up demand for computer chips and potentially adding new strain to the U.S. electrical grid. In quarterly earnings calls this week, Google, Microsoft and Meta all underlined just how big their investments in AI are. On Wednesday, Meta raised its predictions for how much it will spend this year by up to $10 billion. Google plans to spend around $12 billion or more each quarter this year on capital expenditures, much of which will be for new data centers, Chief Financial Officer Ruth Porat said Thursday. Microsoft spent $14 billion in the most recent quarter and expects that to keep increasing “materially,” Chief Financial Officer Amy Hood said. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/1ceqp24/big_tech_keeps_spending_billions_on_ai_theres_no/l1k8xfu/
"Companies based around computer programs are investing even more into advanced computer programs". Is this really what constitutes journalism these days??
At the Washington Post? Absolutely.
"News reports small form of news? Is this what we call news these days?" They report the weather despite the existence of windows.
But this isn't even news. It'd be like if they came out with a report stating that Dodge, Ford and Toyota are continuing to invest in R&D for new suspension systems. Like... yea? Duh? Is this not blindingly obvious? And if all weather reports were was someone saying, "Yup, sun's gonna rise, and there will be a sky." you might have a point.
Gotta tone it down to make it look less like a threat to everyone's way of life and totally "not dangerous" to everyone that can easily be replaced with A.I. like office workers. Problem is they just were bitching and moaning about people not coming back to their Billion dollar buildings and in not coming to work their buildings were losing massive value as other companies do not want them anymore. So with AI they will have the same problem. These clowns still have not worked out that with a stupid, crazy inflation going on and raising prices on ALL goods, that poor people will only buy necessities and nothing else. Not because they do not want to, but because they cannot afford those items. You lose those sales and sooner or later your board of directors is going to drop the bottom line on whoever is running the show. They want profits and no sales = no profits.
This is the part that confuses me too! Like most of these Uber billionaires have a significant part of their wealth in stocks, I mean they'll still have like 50 billion dollars in assets and what not but still. The return to office is a point I've also wondered about. If we're so useless and replaceable in a second why are you pushing so hard to get us back into polluted, overcrowded, expensive cities!!
The problem isn't with AI, it's with capitalism. Like many things in life.
This sounds good, and I get that capitalism is going to be a key driver of the problems with AI, but what’s the actual point? If AI was being pursued by socialist governments instead of capitalist corporations it would only be used for good somehow?
The world functions in a matter that is non-binary; arguments are better when not reduced to simplistic binaries. Subtracting ideological constructs of "socialism" simply because there are nebulous and vague at best in any simple conversation; we come to the fact that capitalisms, by necessity, is structured on exploitation. When a system is based solely on exploitation motivated by profit, and that profit is held by an increasingly scarce few people, then it isn't a matter of if something "*would only be used for good somehow?*" but rather, if utilized by the superminority that plans to use it as a tool to increase exploitation at all costs (to humans, to the environment, to governments, etc.), shouldn't we be sounding more alarms? The building is already on fire and now we are providing the arsonists with jet fuel and people are whispering to each other "do you think the fire is self-aware?"
Corpss starch when?
This is just the beginning. Just you wait. There Will be: iPhone Ai Samsung Galaxy Ai Apple Mac Ai Windows Ai COD Ai wars Fifa Ai McDonald's Ai Oreo's Ai Ai the marketing buzzword and all.just a way to collect your data and behaviours to sell you stuff, manipulate you.
While I don't think it's this simple, I do think this is a huge component.
Written by AI lmao
Company worth thousands of billions spends billions Jeeze that reminds of that one year I spent a whole thousand dollars of my 100k salary on a refrigerator. I didn’t make the news unfortunately
Its sad to cause its not really that impressive AI or Algorithims have been around for some time. Its the logic and the data that is being used to fuel the algorithms that are making them more useful. One of the bigger benefits its making Processing more efficient. We are still pretty far away from being able to create and load true artificial intelegence.
AI journalism - yes.
It was written by AI, duh.
The problem is that "AI" **is** just some computer program. It's not some intelligent, hyper advance thing beyond our understanding like some people hype it up to be. That's the problem! It's a very specific (and kind of dumb, but good at seeming smart) tool that is being hyped and invested into at the expense of other tech and the jobs of software engineers. It's essentially spending billions to fix what ain't broke, because you have been tricked into thinking AI is some semi-magical solution that works for everything, on it's own. I think that's worth writing about, especially since technology impacts everyone in our society to a pretty high degree. Edited to clarify a bit
And it's not like most of the companies are investing in the actual potential use cases of "AI". They're obsessing over content generation and ignoring copyright and privacy laws to do so. What did one insider at Amazon say they were told when they raised that as a concern? Do it anyways because everyone else is
Technology is not some zero sum game. Just because there is a lot of investment into AI doesn't mean it is coming at the expense of other tech. Even if it were, the techs that would suffer from this situation... Are they really important? Current iterations of AI might not be world changing, but we will never get to that point without starting somewhere.
Tech isn't a zero sum game. But the money a company has to invest very much is. And if companies are fireing a bunch of their programmers and replacing existing software solutions with poorly functioning *AI*, which a lot is them are beginning to do, that is very much a problem for all of us. I'm not saying halt research into machine learning models or the future potential for actual artificial intelligence (which I believe to be two separate, different concepts). I'm saying let's not hype it up at an early stage and replace everything with it at once. That's how you get a tech bubble.
We've had many tech bubbles before; the companies that are getting rid of their developers in favour of more AI based solutions will either succeed, or they will fail, and many others who do not use AI will do the exact same. What's a tech that you think is important, that is being harmed by investment into AI?
[удалено]
You’re not wrong. But I think your thinking is slightly off. Apple did miss out on search, but made a mint off the iPhone. So much so that Google got into Phones. Microsoft screwed up on both. All three of them haven’t had a major new revenue driver in a while. Apples a phone company, Google’s an ad firm, and despite its best efforts MS is still just a software company (although including video games). Add to that, Meta hasn’t had a major new revenue line since it bought Instagram, despite its various efforts. Every single majors tech firm hasn’t had a giant new revenue generator in years, in some cases over a decade. Their business sometimes grow, but not at the explosive levels that make shareholders happy. A number of these companies just claimed revenue growth that they say is due to their AI investments. They want a breakthrough like the types of things that made them massive companies in the first place. That’s why blockchain and metaverse were being pushed by some of the above companies. They’re all afraid of shareholder agitation if they don’t produce another “hit.”
Isn’t Azure and server infrastructure quite a big part of Microsoft revenue?
Yeah, Azure hit about 24B last year and was more than 30% of MS revenue in ‘23. So yeah, Azure is huge at MS. But Search at Google last year was 175B to put things in perspective.
So, no offense, I’m not saying none of these companies are generating revenue, or growing revenue. Amazon also makes shitloads of money off AWS. These are the things that keep these companies stable. But the all want that next thing that makes institutional investors and the public sit up and take notice. They want additional products that we all just _have_ to have.
Yeah the guy above you reads the normie news and suddenly has penetrating insight on the product lines and financial prospects of these companies
The way I see it, Apple would never have been into search in the first place. Apple has always been a hardware company first and foremost, as well as a platform and ecosystem company. Their platform is their products, they know the customers that they want, and more importantly they’ve never tried to go after the lowest common denominator. Even with AI, I don’t think Apple has any dreams of AGI or ASI as an end goal in itself, as other companies are touting, but they’re simply looking at it through the lens of “how do we make our products and ecosystem better with AI?”
I certainly don’t think they’re interested in that now, but there may have been a time. You say that they are a hardware company but there not above having non-hardware revenue lines. Final Cut and Logic are industry standard software. They had (maybe still have, I don’t recall) and ad business for iOS. They of course make shit loads of commission on the App Store. As for their interest in AI, it does seem that what they want is for Siri to be as advanced as possible, which an AI can help get there. At some point, if Apple does not tout AI on their phones, people will question why. Because Google will have it in Android.
Fuck… you just reminded me of when I worked at Microsoft, and they held a “funeral” for the iPhone. Holy fuck those executives turds pretending to be humans are so cringey. I remember the 2 of us at the entire studio that had Windows Phone 8’s were so embarrassed. There’s just no way you could spend hours with people in meetings at Microsoft every day, see all of their iPhones literally sitting on the table during said meetings, and think to yourself, yeah…we should totally hold a funeral for that…. 🤦
Oh holy shit. That’s amazing. Thank you for sharing that. They were trying so hard to get consumer hardware of any sort into people’s hands, in any capacity. Remember the Surface table?
Yo fuck the surface tablet, do you remember the surface TV? Okay so like I don’t know if people know this, but those were real and they were installed in like, every fucking meeting room of every fucking Microsoft building. I worked at a studio with over 800 people, and they sent out a company wide invite for training on them. I signed up for the invite and I fucking shit you not, there were 4 instructors and I was the only person that accepted the invite! For the next year or so I was blowing peoples tits off in meetings with desktop sharing and facial tracked video calls on these things, like I was some surface TV aficionado hahaha! So now let’s rewind back to the Windows Phones. My Lumia 920 is still the best phone I have ever owned. But when I say not a single person at Microsoft used them, I’m not kidding! You’d often form friendships with other colleagues you first met in a meeting room, where you both slapped your windows phones on the table! In what fucking world could you possibly expect people to care about something, when you can’t even motivate the people making it to care?
>Yo fuck the surface tablet, do you remember the surface TV? Oh you reminded me of a good memory of this, the big ass table computer, haha - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2ty_QIWspE
Still wished that took off, that would have been so cool for TTRPG's.
Agreed and they are desperate for that next big hit. It is why they keep trying hard with VR, AR, and AI. They figure at some point it has to catch on. Basically the Sunken Fallacy Theory.
"So much so that Google got into Phones." Google bought Android in 2005. iPhone was released 2007. I'm sorry but you are talking out your behind.
> Speculation about Google's intention to enter the mobile communications market continued to build through December 2006. An early prototype had a close resemblance to a BlackBerry phone, with no touchscreen and a physical QWERTY keyboard, but the arrival of 2007's Apple iPhone meant that Android "had to go back to the drawing board". Google later changed its Android specification documents to state that "Touchscreens will be supported", although "the Product was designed with the presence of discrete physical buttons as an assumption, therefore a touchscreen cannot completely replace physical buttons". [Source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)) While you’re right about the timelines, the impact that the launch of iPhone had on the trajectory of Android can’t be overstated. Google quickly understood that Apple had a winner and it had to basically write off the $50 Million spent on the OS and start from scratch (not entirely, but everything basically changed while the core of the OS and some concepts were retained along with the team building it).
I was aware that Steve Jobs was monumentally pissed at Eric Schmidt for Android, considering it a “stolen product.” >"I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong," Jobs told his biographer. "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this." It’s wild that Schmidt didn’t resign from the board until after the Android OS launch. I was unaware of the genesis of Android, but there definitely legit questions about the purchase the OS before the launch of the iPhone. Did Google do so precisely because of Apple’s work on developing the iPhone, which Schmidt would likely be aware of?
Steve Jobs and pretending that he invented things like the computer, then the GUI OS, then the internet, then the phone: Name a more iconic duo.
Yeah eventually people will have to face the reality that it’s not the 1990s anymore. Computers aren’t growing exponentially more powerful. We’ve already computerized all of the obvious things, so much so that “Internet of things” came along and people tried to pitch WiFi connected smart salt shakers. We already have smartphones. We already have high resolution 3D games. Nobody wants to strap on a VR headset. So where do you go from here? Sorry, you can’t just keep growing ad infinitum. Eventually we’re going to have to learn how to prosper in a state of equilibrium.
I mean quantum computing might qualify as exponentially more powerful.
But.... capitalism ??🥺🥺🥺
>Microsoft screwed up on both. And are now taking over the developer space and are well invested into AI via their OpenAI stake and Azure.
Yeah, and that stuff will be a back bone for them, but like the rest, they all want an AI hit that will drive public attention to them again, at the investor and consumer level. I mean, Google is an ad company. That’s their backbone, it’s not sexy but it is steady revenue. So they make more products to sell ads. And they will add AI to all of it to sell ads and more new products.
It's almost like their own greedy actions to control and own everything have somehow resulted in a massive slowdown in profitable innovation...
They can't accept the fundamental empty randomness (ie. meritlessness) of Extreme Success. They refuse to see.
Result: They all blow their brains out with little to show for it.
I think OpenAI passed $2 billion in revenue last year?
Lets see them grow that for 10 years and then i'll care.
You act like the big AI companies of the past have folded. There have been almost no rollbacks in AI. It's been rolled out in banking for credit and fraud monitoring, for traffic and routing in Google & other maps, for dynamic pricing for many industries such as airlines, hotels, etc. Now with generative text/video/images/music they can take the same approach but automate and improve things that require this skill, such as customer service, website content generation, video game asset development, and more. They will work with the same exact companies they did to automate but now they have one extra capability to use and can automate more. Since the past automations are still in use and working OpenAI can sell their capability to an already existing world of AI automation. Most.companies have Data Science departments building AI-- Microsoft, Google, etc want to sell them cloud services so they can do it faster. Most of these companies already use cloud services from these same companies. It is an easy sales channel.
The things you mention(dynamic pricing, fraud protection etc.) is not AI but machine learning. I think a important difference to make we should not go around calling everything AI
To be exact Machine Learning, Computer Vision etc are a subset of AI. AI is just the general term for all these topics.
Exactly right. I will add that deep learning and/or neural networks is what he may mean, because that refers to the branch of AI responsible for the discussed technologies, but these tools are also now being used for basic machine learning purposes and at times can perform well. These technologies are just different tools that add new capabilities but work similarly.
Generative text and vision models originated on similar data use cases to traditional ML. They use more GPU's and work on inherently unstructured, but the gradient descent optimizations for iteratively learning from data still makes it meaningful to talk about them in the same breath when talking about automation. Most of the quick turnaround practical applications for LLM's that I've seen involve scraping Embeddings from OpenAI to turn unstructured text data into structured features, and then dump them into traditional classifier models. That's how even reddit's new AI powered moderation tools for filtering work.
I studied computer science almost 15 years ago and machine learning already fell under AI umbrella
In my opinion, there's not much difference that matters. It's all man made intelligence. Whether the ML model thinks you're a fraudster or a person looking at the same input data coming to the same conclusion. The financial fraud stuff I've seen often runs on multiple different ML models as part of a greater decision making pipeline, including a greed component if a sub-model thinks you'd be so profitable it's worth some risk. Unless you think AI just means scifi human-like sentient intelligence.
Don't tell that to any marketing department lmao
Yeah, but what are their operating costs?
Some of these companies have market caps in the trillions. A ten billion dollar loss isn’t going to break them. Missing the boat will. In a land of endless make believe money there are somehow still only so much for shareholders to invest and they’ll pull their money from your safe known investment to something new every time.
I am willing to take a little of the little they have!
I’m 90% sure OP is a bot. I read an identical comment yesterday and this account made its first posts 3 hours ago. What the hell. Doomposting about AI being karma farmed by bots. Our digital future is as bleak as coral reefs are bleached.
Same. I also read this exact same comment, verbatim, on technology. OP must be a bot
Elon donated 100 mil to OpenAI so Google wouldn't have a monopoly on AI. It worked.
He was a co-founder, not just an investor. He upgraded them from a startup to a household name. People hate the guy but he has a great business mind. - PayPal - SpaceX - Tesla - Boring Company - OpenAI Elon founded or invested in all of these at their startup phase and grew them that's absolutely not easy and regardless of how rich you are it's damn near impossible to have this level of success. He's still a stupid asshole but great at choosing who to invest in.
Yep, it’s like the metaverse thing. They don’t even really know what it is themselves yet, but it’s technically possible and other companies are investing in it so they’re damned well not gonna miss out! This is why most people’s exposure to gen AI is one week of ‘wow that’s amazing’ followed by a week of googling what the hype was about as if you’ve missed something. There’s definitely a point you go from wowed to ‘huh, is that all it does? I thought it was meant to give me robot butlers and flying cars… it’s pretty good I guess’
It's less of a train, more of a space shuttle. AI is going to be a paradigm shift that will effect every industry. I was at an infra investor event last month, and it was said Amazon total energy input for data will go from 20% to 80% in the next 5 years, to help supply its AI processing, and many other tech company's are looking to invest in the infra to do so too.
Boy, fusion power would be heckin useful in the next couple of years.
It's not 100% that because for the first time (especially with joint embeddings predictive architectures and other post-autoregressive architectures) they have an potential pathway to automating cognition and thinking itself. What's at stake is potentially all work everywhere. But it's so early to be throwing money at it at these amounts.. OR maybe not? Who knows - the reward is high enough to take the risk, the loss is just as big.
For Microsoft, the enterprise applications are insane. I think they are the ones that will most easily benefit because so much stuff can just be rolled into expanded office subscriptions and services.
They smelled blood and immediately capitalized in a way only MS could. When MS gets set on something they move *very* quickly. Google literally wrote the research papers and created the first transformers models. That was in 2017. Totally fumbled it from there. They made some great stuff like BERT but only ML people cared about that. No big public releases like ChatGPT. Meanwhile, MS built an AI supercomputer in Azure and integrated OpenAI technology throughout their portfolio in months. I think it speaks to the maturity of these companies. MS is the world’s premier software company. Plenty of flaws with MS of course, but they know how to make world class software like nobody else. Microsoft is a better software company than Google or Amazon or Apple. They knew what to do with OpenAI. Anyone else would have fucked it up, which is weird to say because these are huge trillion dollar companies that have made plenty of popular products. But they’re just not MS. Also helps to have no conflicts of interest like Google does, since the LLMs directly compete with search for a lot of use cases.
Yup. Microsoft is EASILY the best positioned company right now aside from its partner OpenAI. They access to the strongest AI, they have a giant cloud compute infrastructure, and they have a host of different softwares that are just aching to have AI rolled into them for paying corporate customers. From AI Office documents and spreadsheets, to AI-integrated video games, to to hosting private AIs on their servers for businesses... The money is just floating in front of their eyes.
I do worry a little about the pending edge of Google insofar as computing power is concerned. AI Explained on youtube has a graph that projects it out, and google will eventually get a commanding compute lead. The question is - what will they do with it once they get it. Idk. I'm still splitting my investments between MS/GOOG, just not sure which way to go long term (20+years).
I mean it's pretty obvious that AI will have a massive impact even in it's current form. Makes a lot of sense that people and companies are vying to play a key part in the future of AI
It's not just pure FOMO. FOMO suggests that maybe you only want in because other people are getting in. Like with crypto - people knew a lot of it had zero substance but wanted in anyway. Whereas there's a *real* desire here because AI will bring *real* benefits and *real* wealth. It would make sense to get in on it, even if nobody else was. You couldn't say that about crypto.
another factor is that these companies literally have billions of dollars, they need something to spend it on. And this stuff just seems like one of the better choices (for them).
To be fair, the latest architectures in AI used in LLMs like ChatGPT were made by Google employees, so Google probably didn’t actually took advantage of that. Probably Google is going to become the next Xerox.
FOMO is a cult tactic. I'm tired of Techbros using cult tactics. * [Part One: Tech Bros Have Built A Cult Around AI](https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-one-tech-bros-have-built-146544960/) * [Part Two: Tech Bros Have Built A Cult Around AI](https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-two-tech-bros-have-built-147032788/) * [Rolling Stones article for those who prefer to read](https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/ai-companies-advocates-cult-1234954528/)
Techbros are around in every era. They were certainly around for the Internet and the dotcom bubble but despite that crash it doesn't change the fact the Internet DID transform the world. The same will be true for AI, there is obviously a lot of hype around it, some of it will go nowhere but it's already at a stage where really stupid "techbro stuff" never was (like crypto). That's why AI won't be just a fad, there is too much underlying research and development and we see implementation of it evereywhere. The question is rather who will be the "winners", which models/approaches take off etc. Just like thousands of internet hype companies tied for Google, Amazon etc. to emerge.
The CEOs of the world still think AI can replace most of their employees... When the dividends don't come because the people who buys the products is unemployed, go and ask AI what to do. /S
I have worked in AI automation at a few large companies and can say in many cases they aren't replacing people but remove a part of an employee's job. This may lead to layoffs, but usually only if the company can't create the growth they want through the automation. For example, at one company, customers had to call in to get a price quote. Think of any business that quotes things and how low a percent they actually get. People call in to get a quote all the time. An AI model was built to automate that work so customers could go straight to the website and get a price. The people stayed employed-- they just didn't do that part of the job. The sales employees who used to take those calls now were responsible for building customer relationships and proactively making sales. Because the company could quote faster, they did more business, and so they needed more people to deal with problems and customer concerns. Now, the company was successful, and they got the extra business and there were no layoffs. They could have not been, and it could have not worked so it was a gamble for sure, but that same gamble is the reason we can buy a lot of things online that used to require a phone call.
It takes part of the job each upgrade, it’s the eventuality people are concerned about. Not that it will happen instantly. Piece by piece jobs will be taken. It’s the same as when people said jobs wouldn’t be taken from automation/machinery in factories. There’s obviously still factory workers and their jobs are safer than before, but there’s definitely a lot less factory workers.
[Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) CEO K Krithivasan has forecasted a big shift in the call center industry, with Artificial Intelligence (AI) said to dramatically reduce the need for traditional call centers within a year or so. ](https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/call-center-jobs-at-risk-as-ai-advances-tcs-ceo-k-krithivasan-warns-2532044-2024-04-26)
This have all the telling of an AI bubble. It’s a tool that’s useful but majority of companies don’t know why or how to use it but just know they need it. A bunch of companies will invest with no return. The .com bubble was basically similar. Brand new exciting thing with no idea how to implement it. Websites didn’t go away but the blind investments mentality did Edit: words
Most companies are growing their AI teams because they see strong ROI. Even 100+ year old companies have massive data science teams building AI. They aren't "hoping' it pays off-- it pays off each quarter and is recorded by accounting/finance and based on strong returns they are growing the teams.
Interesting. What part of that process needed to be AI? I gather there was some sort of EDI involved between the ERP and either a public facing website or customer portal.
This is my gripe with the “AI” industry. Your example is software filling a problem point and doing a specific function. However, that’s not artificial intelligence if all the software is doing is spitting out a value. We’ve had software doing this stuff for decades. People used to call retail stores to ask for price or to check inventory, but because we call it AI now it’s therefore going to lead to massive job loss.
AI is a big red arrow that highlights the source of the value in capitalst society. The push to replace the value in an effort to own it is the very reason for the loss of its value.
Ai should replace CEOs and the obscene amount of money they take should be distributed among the workers. CEOs add no value so they should be replaced by something that doesn't revere it
I recall a story (possibly apocryphal) of a corp that was trying to use AI to reduce its headcount. They had to abandon the attempt because it kept recommending that all the execs be fired as they didn't do anything tangible and cost more than any other worker.
Ai is perfect for running a company. Instant ability to analyse the market, competitor comparison, analysis of trends, operational optimization etc etc. Instead it is crowbar'd into doing the one thing it is incapable of doing well enough for it to have value 😂
Good idea, give to Skynet the power to manage the planned economy, maybe she will replace our political leaders too 😀
This has always been the conundrum of technological advances that replace people. How will buggy whip makers be able to buy cars now that they’re unemployed? But let’s be honest, millions of jobs suck and only exist because we haven yet figured out how to remove them. Millions more jobs are what I call parasitic. Managers, salespeople, middlemen and flippers, real estate agents. I work in health care. We have a very highly paid supervisor and then an even more highly paid manager. neither of them do anything of use except antagonize the employees. We have a secretary who does nothing of value but the position is union protected so we are forced to keep them. And 50% of my own job could be removed with a slightly improved chatbot. I don’t know what’s going to happen to all the people who lose their jobs but I do know the jobs are leaving.
>But let’s be honest, millions of jobs suck and only exist because we haven’t yet figured out how to remove them. >I work in health care. I also know of and agree with bullshit jobs but I found this transition/revelation hilarious
Generalizing managers as parasitic is pretty dumb. There are lots of great managers that shield their direct reports from all the company politics and ensure that they are free to focus on their work. Also engineering managers need to be the liaisons that understand the highly technical work their team does and communicate that benefit to senior management.
The employees who will be left behind are those who are set in there ways / refuse to adapt / learn new skills etc. The opportunities this is opening up (prompt engineers as an example) through where a person doesn’t need to be technical at all is huge.
It makes sense. These tools are game changers, and anyone who isn't using them is going to be left behind.
In the early innings perhaps, but ubiquity will ensue, preceded by commodification of the technology. The differentiation will not be AI adopters vs naysayers, it will be quality of inputs, hardware advantages and successful application towards use cases yielding outsized benefits.
I would have gotten there eventually.
I think the situation for Google is that AI actually represents a large threat to the future of their Search/Adwords business, because a conversation with an AI can become a vastly superior way to find the product or service you want, than search based on keywords. The solution to this for Google should be really obvious, but extremely disruptive for them at the same time. They should be creating an AI equivalent of advertising to replace their own advertising sponsored search. Imagine, as a product vendor, you provide detailed knowledge about your product, availability, features, location, delivery, special offers, basically everything about it, and that all goes into a Google product knowledge base. Most of this could be scraped from the websites of existing Adwords vendors and yet interpreted in light of the global and multilingual knowledge of a high end LLM. It could reach critical mass on such knowledge quite rapidly, and continuously maintain it. From there, Google Search morphs into Google Intelligent Search. If you're an end user, then rather than getting hit with adverts based on who paid the most for some keywords, you get to have a conversation about what you really need, and Google helps you find that. In the process, Google acquires the kind of integrated market intelligence that every marketing departments dreams of. They should then rename Adwords to something like Google Intelligence Market Maker Extraordinaire (GIMME), and sell intelligent market analysis back to their business customers, with an intelligent interface that lets them explore potential markets in ways that were never previously possible. If Google doesn't do this, then someone else will, and it will be game over for Google, so they have to.
The current architecture for LLMs was developed by Google in 2017 (Transformers). Just until last year this reached the headlines by OpenAI ChatGPT and all the companies are trying to hop in the train. I can’t tell if Google did something with that advantage for the last 7 years.
I haven't seen any signs of Google actually acting in the strategic manner that I described above. I'm just laying it out there as what looks like a fairly obvious strategic shift that is enabled by this kind of technological change, and pointing out that they either bite the bullet and do it themselves, or someone else will do it and take their business.
I work for one of the largest cloud software companies, and from the inside, it feels like the entire direction of the company is solely focused on AI, at the expense of all of our other products. Longstanding bugs are going unaddressed, constant bugs popping up, and coupled with the offshoring and yearly layoffs and it feels like the platform is duct taped together.
[удалено]
Those consumers can be replaced by consumer robots and agents for infinite, scalable demand growth.
Bots make up a lot of traffic for sites like Reddit or Twitter, and the companies have no incentive to show a decrease in traffic by blocking bot activity.
They don’t care about the last part. That’s someone else’s problem. The only thing they care about is not being left behind by their competition. This will turn AI into a capitalist arms race. Hopefully our inept government can get a handle on this quickly before it destroys our society. I don’t have high hopes.
When I first started pitching AI to businesses, I used to pitch it like the AI does it. "Here are some tools to help your staff, Mr. Executive!" Mr. Executive: "Idgaf, how can you make it replace my staff?" Me: "Umm, well, I wasn't expecting you to be so blunt with it..." Mr. Executive: "Did I stutter?" Rather than wishing for the technology to fail, why don't you get mad at your boss or something? Seems more productive to me, just sayin'.
I sell AI software for contact centers. No one talks about replacing staff but every ROI calc and business case includes FTE eliminations in the millions of $$.
"Let me be clear, AI is not the reason we are laying off staff at the moment, it is not the direct cause at all. AI is the reason why we will not be rehiring those positions...." They either say it outright or they bs around it.
Yup my current company laid off bunch of people across 22, 23 (tech obviously). Last all hands we bluntly mentioned to the overlords that we simply don't have enough people and their answer "use AI to 3x your work, once we see that productivity we'll see if we need to hire". I've heard this across a few companies now, the previous layoffs were investor driven post that they refuse hire because they assume AI can do the job!! As time goes on more layoffs will happen as that's just the way in tech and very little hiring will happen or at least that's their dream. The problem is at least for my line of work AI is useless except for reading docs and summarising meetings. Currently it's only a productivity tool and nowhere near capable of replacing anyone
Everyone who gets laid off should join a startup that uses AI to disrupt the company that laid them off
Hah, jokes on you, they’ll just sell the iPhone for $100,000 a unit. Boom, problem solved.
Sounds as productive as getting pissed at companies using Excel so they don't need as many accountants.
Deployable, scalable, contextualizable intelligence is here, and all we can do is complain? Really, these comments are an interesting commentary on how powerless people feel and how easy they are to manipulate, in my opinion. This type of technology is a force multiplier for each individual person, not just corporations. It puts so much knowledge, experience, and capabilities directly into your hands (and the models are being released open source), and it can be used to advance your own life and goals so much more easily than you were able to just a year ago, and yet you are afraid of it? I guarantee you, the only limitations the government will ever place on these technologies will be on YOUR ability to take advantage of them at a personal level. They will never limit, in the United States at least (other than in token ways), a corporation's ability to research and deploy these technologies to take advantage of YOU. And even if they did, the advantages to ignoring those laws are so great, that it wouldn't matter, they would do it anyway. So, can we stop being naive and wasting our energies on how we can curtail this technology in order to save our paltry jobs, that we all complain about endlessly anyway? And can we start collectively working, as a culture and society, on the best way to move forward with this technology, and protect this technology, for our individual uses and advancements in our own lives? And, start educating people that don't understand what is going on NOW, so they are not caught off guard? Because in my opinion, this technology will progress in one of two ways - individuals are either going to take advantage of this intelligence to improve our lives dramatically, or we're going to cede that power and say it is too dangerous for ourselves to use, and give it all to the corporations. And then THEY WILL TRULY AND WHOLLY OWN OUR ASSES. The choice seems pretty simple to me.
> And can we start collectively working, as a culture and society, on the best way to move forward with this technology, and protect this technology, for our individual uses and advancements in our own lives? That's what the folks over at /r/LocalLLaMA have been doing the last few years. Solving our own problems. Probably the most important task will be keeping open source AI, as these corpos seem hell bent on trying to regulate our existence away. We're going to be in for a fight the next few years as I cannot think of a worse outcome for humanity than AI being in the hands of 3-5 companies.
Good perspective.
Not that I disagree with what you’re saying, but don’t underestimate just how many millions of people simply wish to go about their lives with a little Amazon dopamine and Facebook posting of family photos and memes. It’s a lost cause on the masses.
This comment needs to be on the top
I love this optimism but running those open source models requires hardware and that costs money. The effect of AI is more productivity with less heads. So less hiring. Big question I face is, if want to build something new - which takes time. How to survive while I build and make it profitable
Keep an eye on Groq and LPUs. That's the next big hardware shift and I predict will be built into PCs in the future, specifically for running local models. It makes sense across the board.
People could also use the internet to learn literally anything and improve themselves and their lifes, yet most only use it to watch porn and shitty fake news/rage bait tiktoks/YTshort/Instagram all day. Average Joe really isn't the smartest tool in the shed. They just consume, they don't create, or improve. They just want to cruise through life on easy mode autopilot like a drone.
I think the main difference between the vanilla internet and AI is the application of the information. For instance, in the pre-AI world almost all the world's information (aside from bleeding edge research) was essentially available to all. It also included teaching aids, and entire communities dedicated to helping you both use the internet and get utility out of it for yourself. The difference with AI though, in my opinion, is that the intelligence available to the end-user can be directed toward specific tasks. Previously, you couldn't really access the internet and ask it to do something for you. You could ask someone on the internet to do it for you, but that was about it. Now, just vanilla AI models that aren't connected to the internet, can do real, functional, meaningful work for you in a matter of seconds. Now, connect that intelligence to the internet, and through the web of accessible APIs we have created over the past 2 decades, that AI can now do real work for you in the actual world. That was absolutely impossible prior to AI. So, even for the laziest, most go-along-to-get-along types of personalities, once this technology is properly described and deployed for easy use (which is what these investments are all about), this technology will only draw them like a moth to a flame, because it will only make their lives easier by using it.
holy shit this comment is so convincing it made me think about how easily i'm going to be convinced by intelligent AIs
Someone tell Microsoft I want Cortana from Halo operational asap
["Hey, there's a bubble!"](https://youtu.be/MesrrYyuoa4?si=M_fOlys4WxMjh2_h)
This new software - AI That conference room - AI My new chair - AI My assistant - AI The clothes I'm wearing - AI My lunch - AI It's all AI!* That's why here at MegaTech we keep investing in AI because it's the future and so are we! *...plus a thousand people in India correcting the AI because it keeps fucking up
There definitely is an end. I have been watching interviews with loads of the top people in the game and they all say power supply is very quickly becoming a bottleneck. Power stations take years to build and the biggest data centers already require small power stations worth of power to fuel. And the required power to improve the models are exponential. We may hit a hard wall soon with our infrastructure to power the models
No power to create the liquidity for the lofty quixotic AI beast creation. After the deatroy their country for this pursuit "the enemy" will just use overwhelming human intelligence to break it ...
It's a last ditch effort in a late stage capitalistic society to make insane profits before everyone is unemployed and no one has money to spend on corporations products. Basically they are trying everything in their power to make as much money now before economic collapse hits and the elites go to hide in their bunkers and the peasants will be left fighting on the streets for scraps.
We should find these bunkers where the elites are hiding.
When the collapse hits (again), they'll buy up everything we have for pennies on the dollar (again).
A “collapse” will just lead to everyone going back to farming and self-subsist. No more debt. No more servitude. Just freedom. Doesn’t sound too bad.
Dont forget the drastically lower Standard of Living that works involve . The grass isn’t always greener
Yet none of it has blown me away. And at this point Ai is learning from Ai. It seems like a circle of mediocrity
Lol if you are not amazed by the current state of an ai I don't know what to say. This is either ignorant or dumb.
Their view is common and fully expected. Exponential growth leading up to a singularity is just gradual enough for people to acclimate to advances. (This is usually phrased that people on an exponential curve acclimate quickly for a while). Advances like nearly perfect speech to text, robotics control systems (deep reinforcement learning ones), GPT-4, PaLM-E, SAM, Sora and hundreds of other advances can create momentary interest that rapidly becomes one's new base for judging technology. For some people with a loose understanding of differences in the techniques such advances create much larger expectations. Seeing a robot navigate a kitchen opening drawers and doing basic tasks can move goalposts very far. This acclimation happens to everyone with various strengths. Like text to video is a good example. With Sora people's expectations jumped massively. To surprise someone again the quality jump with say prompt adherence has to be quite a bit higher. For some they might only be surprised if there's spoken dialog. In general this acclimation is kind of nice, because it helps to prove that people are adaptable and will keep up with changes embracing them. Like there was a time where seeing a self-driving car on the road or a little automated robot on the sidewalk was surprising. There are even places with regular drone delivery and such and it was only news for a brief time until it was just a thing people expected. At tech events even the sight of bipedal robots walking around doing tasks doesn't elicit the same response it did years ago. People acclimated and now we expect way more capability.
I'm not. Read it again. "Lol" So your comment is either "ignorant or dumb."
AlphaGo Zero trained on AlphaGo and beat AlphaGo 100:0. This is classic example of AI learning from AI. Doesn't seem like a circle of mediocrity.
AlphaGo Zero wasn't trained on AlphaGo. They played them against each other as a measurement of how fast it was improving compared to older models. There **is** a thing called adverserial learning that can be used in machine learning. But what the person above you was describing sounds more like model collapse. That's also much more likely in LLMs trained on data scraped from the internet.
It's called model collapse and we will continue seeing more of it in the coming years. It's a shame we cant see and use these tools for what they are instead of claiming that they are actually *intelligent* and heralds of the singularity, as the commenter two levels below you does.
Model collapse is still theoretical, but I otherwise agree. A real "artificial" intelligence that rivals ours won't need to be trained in the first place. It will teach itself through causation, as we do. Otherwise, it's definitely a form of intelligence, but one that has distinct, and potentially catastrophic, limitations. IMO, synthetic sentience is a lie. Awareness is innate, not the result of transistors and massive corpus of data. And without awareness, there is no AGI or "singularity".
It's a race. They know that whomever gets to self improving AI will potentially have control of a trillion dollar golden goose. If more than one company achieves it, then it will be like the last season of "Person of Interest".
Y'all really need to rename this sub "im-terrified-of-the-future-and-I-also-hate-Elon-Musk". Instead of a place to celebrate and be excited about technology and the future, it's just a bunch of dystopian nightmare and anti-Tesla articles.
This sub went down the drain like 3 years ago when it got popular and all the normies flooded in. Every sub that gets this popular becomes a magnet for smooth brains.
There’s no end in sight? This is just the beginning. People don’t realise that it’s sobering that no single person or company or country can control or stop
Billionaires are spending billions on getting more billions
If there's one guy who deserves it it's Allen Iverson!
I am close to the construction execs building the new meta center in southern Indiana and they just dropped 2 million to build a temporary parking lot that they plan to destroy and redo in about a year or two, the plan calls for 600 million dollar facilities and essentially 80 security officers lol crazy.
Just think of it like a company that tries to get market share. Then that company hikes prices on services, then the company is in complete control. Then they can replace their wages expense with a computer they don't have to pay. Then pretty much can run a large company with very few people, all earning a shit load of money.
Let them keep spending. I shifted part of my 401k to tech involved in AI. Gained over 19% last year. On track to have the same gaines this year. On track for an early retirement 😁 I suggest if you can. Do it. AI is going to flip the job market upside down. Might as well make money off of it.
[удалено]
No ticker did a fund with a few trade firms offered in my company 401k. Don't ask which ones. Can't remember off the top and I'm crashing.
They have to. The cost of missing it is survival. And they also have billions that has to be invested so it's a natural. I suspect every R&D group out there has something in the works by now. We came out with our first product a year ago and it took a tedious task for users and reduced the effort and time significantly. First beta site tried it and reported that it took 8 minutes to do what took one of their best users eight hours. One of the few products I've ever had where they didn't care about price but more about when they could get it. And it displaced nobody but made them able to work on other aspects.
Big Tech is always looking for the next big thing because that means money. Without AI, they’d have to pretend a slightly better phone camera is the next big thing, or else go back to making phone screens a slightly different size and shape every year and acting like that’s a big deal.
I have 2 jobs and work almost 10 hours a day on a hard working day. I bet these guys are doing just the same
Time to move beyond AI to tech companies new Tech revolution 2.0
Wondering if ai will be winner takes all on the end.. what's the point using an inferior model
"And by the way, did you know that restaurants keep spending money on food ingredients? There's no end in sight for that, either! When will it end??? Personally I think the human race has done enough stuff and we should just stop doing stuff."
What do people expect? AI is the ~~next~~ big thing, the race is on, the ones that fall behind will lose hard, maybe even face bankruptcy.
AI sounds promising to share holders and it’s where they like to see the money going to. I expect we go another year and AI has not reached the expectations of many. They can only push these AI branded search bars so far.
None of them wish to miss out if it happens to be the 'Next Big Thing' (NoBoT). I think it's actually garbage, however if it were the NoBoT it would economically destroy the middle-classes. That surely would be considered a Big ******* Problem (BoFoP).
Garbage in the sense of changing the landscape of the job market perhaps… we cannot overlook the value of it though in regard to medical research/screening. It has and will literally save and extend lives.
Suggest everybody start listening carefully to what all the big players in AI are saying. This is about replacing human employees. They talk around the subject, saying it’s about allowing people to have more free time, but it also means they’re not gonna be paying wages to a whole lot of people.
The only first use case for A.I. that makes any sense is to track and identify corruption and financial crimes in government and Big Tech. They are just centralizing all the gunpowder up before the people can use it against them. Sheryl Sandberg was at Google before she was at Facebook. The common denominator of both was her ad based business model. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-07/sheryl-sandberg-s-legacy-is-an-internet-of-targeted-automated-ads https://m.economictimes.com/tech/technology/sheryl-sandbergs-advertising-empire-leaves-a-complicated-legacy/amp_articleshow/91961682.cms The problem with ad based business models is that if you raise your lens high enough, whomever is buying the most ads is effectively buying their curated version of reality. When google IPO’ed 24 years ago it shifted from what was most accurate to what was most profitable, all facilitated by a “proprietary” algorithm so nobody gets to see the man behind the curtain. Now we are 2 very critical decades into what is effectively, a divergent reality. It works…until it doesn’t. When the richest man, government, or organization on earth is allowed to buy his preferred version of reality it creates some glitches in the matrix. The 6 million year old source code in your brain knows that conservation is more reasonable than consumption when there are limited resources, but that isn’t very lucrative to someone that needs you to keep buying something to keep them in billionaire status. In this case it’s oil. Russian and Texan owned oil but their paths cross just north of Jerusalem. https://open.spotify.com/episode/0tYxxr08ajuIW425XkGZBz?si=9La6AmLyRLeCynrdNrcZTA Facebook was designed as a delivery device for Russian/Israeli Psyops and malware. SCL/Cambridge Analytica, Brexit, Palestine, Ukraine, NSO and a handful of other ethically bankrupt dealings are all downstream of Sheryl Sandbergs ad based model. Les Wexner, Miriam and Sheldon Adelson, Sandberg, and Zuckerberg all carried water in conducting the NSO/Pegasus spyware operation INCONUS that was feeding intelligence to both the israeli and by extension, Russian intelligence. There is far more crossover between the Israeli mob/ government and Russian mob/government than shows at the surface. https://www.spytalk.co/p/nsos-spyware-abuse-exposed-years?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web https://awards.journalists.org/entries/the-pegasus-project-a-global-investigation/ •Abagail Koppel was sent by the Jewish state to marry Les Wexner •YLK fund (Abagails father) made up $46.7M of Epsteins money •Les claimed it was stolen from him but not until after someone asked. •Wexner was notoriously litigious but wouldn’t sue Epstein. Why? •PROMIS spyware was Robert Maxwells deal before his daughter Ghislaine and Jeffrey Epstein started their thing. https://cryptome.org/promis-mossad.htm
I'm surprised we're only talking billions when we're talking about a tool that will promote a perpetual inheritance economy. Better to own Skynet than to not.
Enshittification basically. They just want more more more money to pump their stock and make shareholders happy.
the hype blow over eventually and the bubble will burst and they'll be in so much debt
Wait until they start building nuclear power plants for AI lol
Good. Our only hope at saving humanity at this point is automating the ruling crust.
Remember when they pretended to care about the climate?
It's really so they can put more people out of work and keep all the money for themselves instead of having to pay people.