AI has been around since the 50s. We just keep changing what we call AI. The only difference with LLMs is this time they actually tried to sell it as a real sentient solution and it’s biting them in the ass because it isn’t any better than anything that came before and in many ways is actually worse. I feel like people totally forgot about when Watson beat Ken Jennings.
LLMs are a conversation model, they were only intended to be an interface between people and an expert system, not a magic answers machine.
LLMs are fairly useless, but the algorithms they use like weighting can be used for things like pattern matching, which can be used to replace the armies of office workers in internal control systems.
Thats not the same as the LLM industry, which is just a scam pure and simple. They need to keep accessing finance just to keep the money flowing, there is no end use for these massive data centres.
Wow I knew ai had been around for a long time but I didn’t think it was that long. Color tv came out in the 50s.
What I meant by it’s too big to fail was so much money has been invested into AI. I was also referencing when Obama said banks were too big to fail but that was more a satire statement.
Yeah, some of the very first neural networks were created in the early 50s. TV is an interesting example and I am glad you mentioned it. Different components of what make up (analog) TV and TV broadcasts were ready to go in the 30s but weren’t adopted in mass for nearly 20 years due to WWII. Likewise a lot of other technologies were put on hold or redirected for the war effort and computing technology is no different. This is part of why it feels like technology exploded after the war.
I understood what you meant. I was trying to point out that a lot of AI companies like IBM haven’t invested in LLMs in the same way that, for instance, Open AI has. IBM isn’t really at risk of failing if the bubble pops, as their AI models and other products have been in use for decades, but Open AI has nothing else to show for its investments and is yet to be profitable.
It is better than other deep models in some ways, but that’s also not really a surprise given the huge sums of resources thrown at it. Take any technology and make it the center of a supercharged economic bubble and you’ll see something amazing but unsustainable coming out of it.
AI has been around since the 50s. We just keep changing what we call AI. The only difference with LLMs is this time they actually tried to sell it as a real sentient solution and it’s biting them in the ass because it isn’t any better than anything that came before and in many ways is actually worse. I feel like people totally forgot about when Watson beat Ken Jennings.
LLMs are a conversation model, they were only intended to be an interface between people and an expert system, not a magic answers machine.
LLMs are fairly useless, but the algorithms they use like weighting can be used for things like pattern matching, which can be used to replace the armies of office workers in internal control systems.
Thats not the same as the LLM industry, which is just a scam pure and simple. They need to keep accessing finance just to keep the money flowing, there is no end use for these massive data centres.
Wow I knew ai had been around for a long time but I didn’t think it was that long. Color tv came out in the 50s.
What I meant by it’s too big to fail was so much money has been invested into AI. I was also referencing when Obama said banks were too big to fail but that was more a satire statement.
Yeah, some of the very first neural networks were created in the early 50s. TV is an interesting example and I am glad you mentioned it. Different components of what make up (analog) TV and TV broadcasts were ready to go in the 30s but weren’t adopted in mass for nearly 20 years due to WWII. Likewise a lot of other technologies were put on hold or redirected for the war effort and computing technology is no different. This is part of why it feels like technology exploded after the war.
I understood what you meant. I was trying to point out that a lot of AI companies like IBM haven’t invested in LLMs in the same way that, for instance, Open AI has. IBM isn’t really at risk of failing if the bubble pops, as their AI models and other products have been in use for decades, but Open AI has nothing else to show for its investments and is yet to be profitable.
Indeed, and one could argue previous attempts were much more impressive.
It is better than other deep models in some ways, but that’s also not really a surprise given the huge sums of resources thrown at it. Take any technology and make it the center of a supercharged economic bubble and you’ll see something amazing but unsustainable coming out of it.