Technology

59589 readers

2891 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

165

OpenAI, Google, Anthropic admit they can’t scale up their chatbots any further (pivot-to-ai.com)

submitted 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) by MajorHavoc@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm usually the one saying "AI is already as good as it's gonna get, for a long while."

This article, in contrast, is quotes from folks making the next AI generation - saying the same.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] GetOffMyLan@programming.dev 5 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Seems unlikely as that's essentially what we had before and they were not very good at all.

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Unlikely, but there's some percedent.

We've seen this pattern play out in video games a bunch of times.

Revolutionary new way to do things. It's cool, but not... You know...fun.

So we give up on it as a dead and and go back to the old ways for awhile.

Then somebody figures out how to (usually hard code) bumpers on the new revolutionary new way, such that it stays fun.

Now the revolutionary new way is the new gold stand and default approach.

For other industries, replace "fun" above with the correct goal for than industry. "Profitable" is one that the AI hucksters are being careful not to say...but "honest", "correct" and "safe" also come to mind.

We are right before the bit where we all decide it was a bad idea.

Which comes before we figure out hard-coding the bumpers can get us where we wanted, after a lot of work by really smart well paid humans.

I've seen industries skip the "all decide it was a bad idea" phase, and go straight to the "hard work by humans to make this fulfill the available promise" phase, but we don't actually look on track to, today.

Many current investors are convicned that their clever talking puppet is going to do the hard work of engineering the next generation of talking puppet.

I have some faith that we can reach that milestone. I'm familiar enough with the current generation of talking puppet to confidently declare that this won't be the time it happens.

My incentive in sharing all this is that I like over half of you reading there, and so figure I can give some of you a shot at not falling for this particular "investment phase" which is essentially, in practical terms, a con.

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 2 points 10 hours ago

If you're referring to symbolic AI, I don't think that the AI scene will turn 180° and ditch NN-based approaches. Instead what I predict is that we'll see hybrids - where a symbolic model works as the "core" of the AI, handling the logic, and a neural network handles the input/output.