Yes, it means that their basic architecture must be heavily refactored. The current approach of ‘build some model and let it run on training data’ is a dead end
a dead end.
That is simply verifiably false and absurd to claim.
Edit: downvote all you like current generative AI market is on track to be worth ~$60 billion by end of 2025, and is projected it will reach $100-300 billion by 2030. Dead end indeed.
Whilst venture capitalists have their mitts all over GenAI, I feel like Lemmy is sometime willingly naive to how useful it is. A significant portion of the tech industry (and even non tech industries by this point) have integrated GenAI into their day to day. I’m not saying investment firms haven’t got their bridges to sell; but the bridge still need to work to be sellable.
So no tech that blows up on the market is useful? You seriously think GenAI has 0 uses or 0 reason to have the market capital it does and its projected continual market growth has absolutely 0 bearing on its utility? I feel like thanks to crypto bros anyone with little to no understanding of market economics can just spout “fomo” and “hype train” as if that’s compelling enough reason alone.
The explosion of research into AI? It’s use for education? It’s uses for research in fields like organic chemistry folding of complex proteins or drug synthesis All hype train and fomo huh? Again: naive.
just because it is used for stuff, doesn’t mean it should be used for stuff. example: certain ai companies prohibit applicants from using ai when applying.
Lots of things have had tons of money poured into them only to end up worthless once the hype ended. Remember nfts? remember the metaverse? String theory has never made a testable prediction either, but a lot of physicists have wasted a ton of time on it.
just because it is used for stuff, doesn’t mean it should be used for stuff
??? What sort of logic is this? It’s also never been a matter of whether it should be used. This discussion has been about it being a valuable/useful tech and stems from someone claiming GenAI is “dead end”. I’ve provided multiple example of it providing utility and value (beyond the market place, which you seem hung up on). Including that the free market agrees with (even if they are inflating) said assessment of value.
example: certain ai companies prohibit applicants from using ai when applying
Keyword: some. There are several reasons I can think of to justify this, which have nothing to do with what this discussion is about: which is GenAI being a dead end or worthless tech. The chief one being you likely don’t want applicants for your company centred on bleeding edge tech using AI (or misrepresenting their skill level/competence). Which if anything further highlights GenAIs utility???
Lots of things have had tons of money poured into them only to end up worthless once the hype ended. Remember nfts? remember the metaverse?
I’ll reiterate that I have provided real examples outside of market value of GenAI use/value as a technology. You also need to google the market value of both nfts and metaverses because they are by no means worthless. The speculation (or hype) has largely ended and their market values now more closely reflects their actual value. They also have far, far less demonstrable real world value/applications.
String theory has never made a testable prediction either, but a lot of physicists have wasted a ton of time on it.
??? How is this even a relevant point or example in your mind? GenAI is not theoretical. Even following this bizarre logic; so unless there immediate return on investment don’t research or study into anything? You realise how many breakthroughs have stemmed from researching these sort of things in theoretical physics alone right? Which is entirely different discussion. Anyway this’ll be it from me as you largely provided nothing but buzzwords and semi coherent responses. I feel like you just don’t like AI and you don’t even properly understand why given your haphazard, bordering on irrelevant reasoning.
Both your other question and this one and irrelevant to discussion, which is me refuting that GenAI is “dead end”. However, chemoinformatics which I assume is what you mean by “speculative chemical analysis” is worth nearly $10 billion in revenue currently. Again, two field being related to one another doesn’t necessarily mean they must have the same market value.
Boy these goalpost sure are getting hard to see now.
Is anybody paying for ChatGPT, the myriad of code completion models, the hosting for them, dialpadAI, Sider and so on? Oh I’m sure one or two people at least. A lot of tech (and non tech) companies, mine included, do so for stuff like Dialpad and sider off the top of my head.
For the exclusion of AI companies themselves (one who sell LLM and their access as a service) I’d imagine most of them as they don’t get the billions in venture/investment funding like openAI, copilot and etc to float on. We usually only see revenue not profitability posted by companies. Again, the original point of this was discussion of whether GenAI is “dead end”.
Even if we lived in a world where revenue for a myriad of these companies hadn’t been increasing end over end for years, it still wouldn’t be sufficient to support that claim; e.g. open source models, research inside and out of academia.
If the rapid progress over the past 5 or so years isn’t enough (consumer grade GPU used to generate double digit tokens per minute at best), it’s wide spread adoption and market capture isn’t enough, what is?
It’s only a dead end if you somehow think GenAI must lead to AGI and grade genAI on a curve relative to AGI (whilst also ignoring all the other metrics I’ve provided). Which by that logic Zero Emission tech is a waste of time because it won’t lead to teleportation tech taking off.
That is simply verifiably false and absurd to claim.
Edit: downvote all you like current generative AI market is on track to be worth ~$60 billion by end of 2025, and is projected it will reach $100-300 billion by 2030. Dead end indeed.
What’s the billable market cap on which services exactly?
How will there be enough revenue to justify a 60 billion evaluation?
ever heard of hype trains, fomo and bubbles?
Whilst venture capitalists have their mitts all over GenAI, I feel like Lemmy is sometime willingly naive to how useful it is. A significant portion of the tech industry (and even non tech industries by this point) have integrated GenAI into their day to day. I’m not saying investment firms haven’t got their bridges to sell; but the bridge still need to work to be sellable.
again: hype train, fomo, bubble.
So no tech that blows up on the market is useful? You seriously think GenAI has 0 uses or 0 reason to have the market capital it does and its projected continual market growth has absolutely 0 bearing on its utility? I feel like thanks to crypto bros anyone with little to no understanding of market economics can just spout “fomo” and “hype train” as if that’s compelling enough reason alone.
The explosion of research into AI? It’s use for education? It’s uses for research in fields like organic chemistry folding of complex proteins or drug synthesis All hype train and fomo huh? Again: naive.
just because it is used for stuff, doesn’t mean it should be used for stuff. example: certain ai companies prohibit applicants from using ai when applying.
Lots of things have had tons of money poured into them only to end up worthless once the hype ended. Remember nfts? remember the metaverse? String theory has never made a testable prediction either, but a lot of physicists have wasted a ton of time on it.
??? What sort of logic is this? It’s also never been a matter of whether it should be used. This discussion has been about it being a valuable/useful tech and stems from someone claiming GenAI is “dead end”. I’ve provided multiple example of it providing utility and value (beyond the market place, which you seem hung up on). Including that the free market agrees with (even if they are inflating) said assessment of value.
Keyword: some. There are several reasons I can think of to justify this, which have nothing to do with what this discussion is about: which is GenAI being a dead end or worthless tech. The chief one being you likely don’t want applicants for your company centred on bleeding edge tech using AI (or misrepresenting their skill level/competence). Which if anything further highlights GenAIs utility???
I’ll reiterate that I have provided real examples outside of market value of GenAI use/value as a technology. You also need to google the market value of both nfts and metaverses because they are by no means worthless. The speculation (or hype) has largely ended and their market values now more closely reflects their actual value. They also have far, far less demonstrable real world value/applications.
??? How is this even a relevant point or example in your mind? GenAI is not theoretical. Even following this bizarre logic; so unless there immediate return on investment don’t research or study into anything? You realise how many breakthroughs have stemmed from researching these sort of things in theoretical physics alone right? Which is entirely different discussion. Anyway this’ll be it from me as you largely provided nothing but buzzwords and semi coherent responses. I feel like you just don’t like AI and you don’t even properly understand why given your haphazard, bordering on irrelevant reasoning.
Is the market cap on speculative chemical analysis that many billions?
Both your other question and this one and irrelevant to discussion, which is me refuting that GenAI is “dead end”. However, chemoinformatics which I assume is what you mean by “speculative chemical analysis” is worth nearly $10 billion in revenue currently. Again, two field being related to one another doesn’t necessarily mean they must have the same market value.
Right, and what percentage of their expenditures is software tooling?
Who’s paying for this shit? Anybody? Who’s selling it without a loss? Anybody?
Boy these goalpost sure are getting hard to see now.
Is anybody paying for ChatGPT, the myriad of code completion models, the hosting for them, dialpadAI, Sider and so on? Oh I’m sure one or two people at least. A lot of tech (and non tech) companies, mine included, do so for stuff like Dialpad and sider off the top of my head.
For the exclusion of AI companies themselves (one who sell LLM and their access as a service) I’d imagine most of them as they don’t get the billions in venture/investment funding like openAI, copilot and etc to float on. We usually only see revenue not profitability posted by companies. Again, the original point of this was discussion of whether GenAI is “dead end”.
Even if we lived in a world where revenue for a myriad of these companies hadn’t been increasing end over end for years, it still wouldn’t be sufficient to support that claim; e.g. open source models, research inside and out of academia.
How very nice.
How’s the cocaine market?
Wow, such a compelling argument.
If the rapid progress over the past 5 or so years isn’t enough (consumer grade GPU used to generate double digit tokens per minute at best), it’s wide spread adoption and market capture isn’t enough, what is?
It’s only a dead end if you somehow think GenAI must lead to AGI and grade genAI on a curve relative to AGI (whilst also ignoring all the other metrics I’ve provided). Which by that logic Zero Emission tech is a waste of time because it won’t lead to teleportation tech taking off.