Technology

59207 readers

2520 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

[email protected]

862

The air begins to leak out of the overinflated AI bubble (www.latimes.com)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

264 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

Stuff like LLMs or ConvNets (and the likes) can already be used to do some pretty amazing stuff that we could not do a decade ago, there is really no need to shit rainbows and puke glitter all over it.

I'm shitting rainbows and puking glitter on a daily basis BUT it's not against AI as a field, it's not against AI research, rather it's against :

catastrophism and fear, even eschatology, used as a marketing tactic
open systems and research that become close
trying to lock a market with legislation
people who use a model, especially a model they don't even have e.g using a proprietary API, and claim they are an AI startup
C-levels decision that anything now must include AI
claims that this or that skill is soon to be replaced by AI with actually no proof of it
meaningless test results with grand claim like "passing the bar exam" used as marketing tactics
claims that it scales, it "just needs more data", not for .1% improvement but for radical change, e.g emergent learning
for-profit (different from public research) scrapping datasets without paying back anything to actual creators
ignoring or lying about non renewable resource consumption for both training and inference
relying on "free" or loss leader strategies to dominate a market
promoting to be doing the work for the good of humanity then signing exclusive partnership with a corporation already fined for monopoly practices

I'm sure I'm forgetting a few but basically none of those criticism are technical. None of those criticism is about the current progress made. Rather, they are about business practices.