• utopiah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    Eh… “Robin Li says increased accuracy is one of the largest improvements we’ve seen in Artificial Intelligence. “I think over the past 18 months, that problem has pretty much been solved—meaning when you talk to a chatbot, a frontier model-based chatbot, you can basically trust the answer,” the CEO added.”

    That’s plain wrong. Even STOA black box chatbots give wrong answer to the simplest of questions sometimes. That’s precisely what NOT being able to trust mean.

    How can one believe anything this person is saying?

    • Benaaasaaas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      To trust a computer it has to be correct 100% of the time, because it can’t say “I don’t know”.

  • EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    Yeah, AI is really just a surveillance tool than anything else.

    When AI “creates” something, it’s just pulling up things related to words you typed in and making an amalgamation of what you typed in out of what it has.

    The real purpose is for corporations and governments to look through people’s devices and online storage at super speed.

    this is why you all need to be using end-to-end encrypted storage for everything and VPNs with perfect forward secrecy

    do your own research into the history of each provider of those things before you buy it

  • don@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    They couldn’t keep their heads on fucking straight during the .com bubble, and here they are doing it all over again.

  • MooseTheDog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    People look at the advertising for this shit (and future tech-bro shit) and wonder, “who is this for”? Remember E.L.O.N. Exaggerated Lies Overlooked Narratives

    Think of every manager and boss you’ve ever had. They don’t think, they just do. Salesmen convince them using issues that don’t exist, to sell solutions that don’t really work, to people that don’t understand how to use them. Repeat over 70 years and you have the modern American education system.

    Now things are different. Money is scarce, things are getting tight. Tech-Bros have changed from a mildly infuriating strategy, to a downright abusive one. These simple minded managers think everything is under attack, and the only solution is what they already have, but heavily monetized and completely unusable.

  • weew@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Yeah, but the 0.1% remaining will take over the world.

    Doors anyone remember the era when there were a million search engines? Google didn’t spawn alone.

    Same with Amazon. You think nobody else tried to make an online store in the 90s? Lol.

    Saying “AI is going to be a big flop because 99% of companies today will end up failing” is as stupid as saying “online shopping will never work because 99% of online stores will close by the year 2010”

    • pup_atlas@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      Sure, but the difference here was that all those companies were offering something different. Some had better results than others, a better ui, more accuracy in certain niches, etc. But 99% of AI companies now are all effectively reselling the OpenAI API. They aren’t making an effort to differentiate themselves at all. It’s as if Google was the only shop in town, and everyone bought all their search data an algorithms to slap their logo on. That’s just simply not sustainable at anywhere near the scale it is now. This won’t be a 3-5 year decline, it’ll be a 2 month crash.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        No one actually thought that they were a good idea it was just a bunch of con artists. It was a bubble for sure but it was an entirely artificially created one. There was no real business behind any of it.

        • figjam@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 days ago

          I would argue that this current AI bubble is artificially created by a different type of conmen.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 days ago

            Yeah but in fairness the AI actually does work. You can actually use the AI to achieve things I’ve never seen anybody achieve anything beneficial with NFTs

            My argument really being that there is a potential for real benefit with AI in a way that never existed for made-up digital scarcity

            • figjam@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 days ago

              I totally agree with you and once dudes with dollar signs in their eyes stop with craming it in toasters I will be very happy to see where the tech goes.

    • dan@upvote.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Same with Amazon. You think nobody else tried to make an online store in the 90s? Lol.

      Fun fact: the first online store still exists. It’s Pizza Hut. They launched an experiment for online ordering in 1994. The first company to ever sell a product on the web.

      • wavebeam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        Yum brands has always been at the forefront of using tech to sell fast food. This was true then and is true now. Taco Bell has pioneered kiosks and in-app ordering as well as KDS in QSR environments.

    • Eyck_of_denesle@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      I doubt anyone is downplaying that. People are just discussing how all companies are pushing A.I into products that don’t need it. Idk about you but I’m tired seeing A.I advertised as a feature on every app/site when it’s just a gpt wrapper.

    • Tja@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      Wrong audience for this message. Most on lemmy are still running with their fingers in their ears yelling la-la-la really loud.

    • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      I went to a AI conference and you can just feel how bogus it all feels. Like “Our patent pending AI system references billions of crowd-sourced data points to identify what you are craving for breakfast! Never think about breakfast again!”

      And as a engineer speaking with other engineers, we all collectively shrug and just keep taking the money. I’ll AI your toaster for enough money I don’t GAF.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    Yeah, but thanks to the glory of corporateworld, all the people involved in making these decisions will be in a higher position at a different company by the time the consequences come knocking.

    You definitely will not regret spending billions of dollars on GPUs and electricity bills.

  • GeneralInterest@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    Maybe it’s like the dotcom bubble: there is genuinely useful tech that has recently emerged, but too many companies are trying to jump on the bandwagon.

    LLMs do seem genuinely useful to me, but of course they have limitations.

    • datelmd5sum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      We’re hitting logarithmic scaling with the model trainings. GPT-5 is going to cost 10x more than GPT-4 to train, but are people going to pay $200 / month for the gpt-5 subscription?

      • Skates@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        Is it necessary to pay more, or is it enough to just pay for more time? If the product is good, it will be used.

      • Madis@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        But it would use less energy afterwards? At least that was claimed with the 4o model for example.

      • GeneralInterest@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        Businesses might pay big money for LLMs to do specific tasks. And if chip makers invest more in NPUs then maybe LLMs will become cheaper to train. But I am just speculating because I don’t have any special knowledge of this area whatsoever.

  • Mwa@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    idk why baidu requires a account to download from it.

  • ulkesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    Wow, a CEO who doesn’t buy into the hype? That’s astonishing.

    I, for one, cannot wait for the bubble to burst so we can get back to some sense of sanity.

    Edit>> Though if Baidu is investing in AI like all the rest, then maybe they just think they’ll be immune — in which case I’m sad again that I haven’t yet come across a CEO who calls bullshit on this nonsense.

    AI will have its uses, and it has practical use cases such as helping people to walk or to speak or to translate in real time, etc. But we’re decades away from what all these CEOs seem to think they’re going to cash in on now. And it’ll be fun on some level watching them all be wrong.