this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024
131 points (93.4% liked)
Technology
59569 readers
3431 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not every new technology or shift in the economy is a "bubble" that's inevitably going to "pop" someday.
But this one definitely is.
It's like watching the Blockchain saga in fast-forward.
Such confidence. Why do you think so?
Many of the shifts that have happened in the economy are a result of capabilities that existing AI models actually demonstrably have right now, rather than anticipation of future developments. Even if no further developments happen those existing capabilities aren't going to just "go away" again somehow.
Also worth noting, blockchains are still around and are doing just fine.
Blockchain is over 10 years old and still not used for its primary purpose: a currency for legal transactions. It's way too volatile and very few institutions accept it.
AI can't reach its promised capability of doing everything for us automatically because it isn't actually AI. It's just advanced Clippy and autocomplete. It can't replace anyone senior. It's just a crappy intern.
Why do you think that's its primary purpose? It has lots of uses. The point is that it's doing fine, it hasn't "gone away." And if you need a non-volatile cryptocurrency for some purpose there are a variety of stablecoins designed to meet that need.
Your criterion for a "bubble popping" is that the technology doesn't grow to completely dominate the world and do everything that anyone has ever imagined it could do? That's a pretty extreme bar to hold it to, I don't know of any technology that's passed it.
So it can replace people lower than "senior?" That's still quite revolutionary.
When spreadsheet and word processing programs became commonplace whole classes of jobs ceased to exist. Low-level accountants, secretarial pools, and so forth. Those jobs never came back because the spreadsheet and word processing programs are still working fine in that role to this day. AI's going to do the same to another swath of jobs. Dismissing it as "just advanced Clippy" isn't going to stop it from taking those jobs, it's only going to make the people who were replaced by it feel a little worse about what they previously did for a living.
Sure, that's why I only ever hear about unregulated securities when a scam makes the news. XD
My criterion for a bubble pop is the sudden and intense disinvestment that occurs once the irrational exuberance wears out and the bean counters start writing off unprofitable debt.
Given that so-called "AI" is falling into the trough of disillusionment, I'd expect it to begin in earnest within a few months.
No, it can't, because it isn't and cannot be made trustworthy. If you need a human to review the output for hallucinations then you might as well save yourself the licensing costs and let the human do the work in the first place.
You've switched from saying that a cryptocurrency's "primary purpose" is as a currency for transactions to saying that they're securities, those are not remotely similar things.
Anyway. Are you aware that, assuming the Gartner hype cycle actually does apply here (it's not universal) and AI is really in the "trough of disillusionment", beyond that phase lies the "slope of enlightenment" wherein the technology settles into long-term usage? I feel like you're tossing terminology around in this discussion without knowing a lot about what it actually means.
If you think it can't replace anyone then why say "It can't replace anyone senior"?
Also, what licensing costs? Some AI providers charge service fees for using them, but as far as I'm aware none of them claim copyright over the output of LLMs. And there are open-weight LLMs you can run yourself on your own computer if you want complete independence.
That was someone else's argument, but it can't be denied that the original use-case envisioned blockchain securities as a currency.
I'm well aware, it's the slope down into the trough that will pop the bubble of "AI" overinvestment. I wouldn't be surprised if some application of LLM tech finds a profitable niche, but I'd be very surprised to see it in common use outside of automated copywriting for scammers.
That wasn't me.
Those ones.
Hasn't it already been ruled that LLM outputs cannot be copyrighted, or was that just patents and I'm misremembering?
Ah yes, because rolling your own unreliable text generator is so much less expensive. XD
Apologies, you're right. I took care to double check the wording but neglected to spot the different username.
No, there have been a lot of misleading news articles with headlines like that but nothing like that has been decided in any jurisdictions that I'm aware of.
The most popular news story to get headlines like that is the Thaler v. Perlmutter case, if you do a Google search for that you'll find an endless stream of "U.S. Court holds that AI generated works cannot be copyrighted" headlines. But that's not remotely what the case was actually about. What actually happened was that Thaler generated an image using an AI and then went to the US Copyright office to register the copyright *in the name of the program that generated it." That is, he went to the Copyright office and told them "the copyright for this work is solely held by the computer that generated it. Nobody else was involved in its creation." The copyright office responded "that's silly, copyright can only be held by a person (human or corporate). A computer is not a person." Since the list of copyright-holders Thaler was claiming was therefore zero, the Copyright office ruled that the work must be in the public domain.
Thaler sued, and in the subsequent court case he tried to add himself to the list of copyright-holders. The judge said "no, that's not what this suit is about, knock it off. You told the copyright office you didn't hold a copyright to that work, and as a result their ruling that the work was uncopyrighted was correct."
If he'd tried to claim copyright for himself from the start there wouldn't have been any problem. There have been other instances where humans have registered copyrights for works that they used an AI to generate. The only reason Thaler failed was because he specifically and explicitly said that he wasn't claiming copyright over it. This has unfortunately turned into one of those "suing McDonalds for making their coffee hot" semi-urban-legends.
And even if a U.S. court did make a ruling along those lines, the U.S. isn't the whole world. There are plenty of countries out there that would be happy to take the lead instead if the U.S. decided it didn't want to be supportive of local AI-driven industry.
It really is. I run LLMs on my home computer myself, for fun, using a commodity graphics card. The models it can run don't quite reach ChatGPT's level of sophistication but they're close, and they have the advantage that I can control them much more precisely to perform the tasks that I want them to perform. If I wanted to use a more sophisticated open model there are cloud providers that could run it for me for pennies, I just like having the hardware completely under my control.