Post #2849800

2026-05-18 10:03 UTC

The more logical explanation is that AI is not a wave like the Internet and Mobile, but it is instead a wave like cryptocurrencies, NFTs and tulip bulbs. If there’s one thing that almost 3 decades at or near the forefront of Tech has taught me is that “novel” is not the same as “better”, and that of all the times a novel technology was pushed by insane amounts of hype, only a handful turned out to match the hype and the ratio of good-ones to bullshit has become much worse in the last 2 decades as the Tech Startup sector fully morphed from Techie-driven to Financeer-driven. On hype alone “AI” (as in, what’s called now AI for the public, rather than the ML domain) stinks of greed-driven bullshit and the more one analyses the Technical details of LLMs and the Mathematics of it as well as of the improvements over time, the more painfully obvious it becomes that it’s not at all AGI or a path to it, rather it’s an overhyped attempt at it that turned out to be the wrong path. (All of which would’ve been absolutelly fine and a big Scientific step forward if it weren’t for the greedy financeer class and grifters pushing, purelly for their own personal enrichment, for people and companies to adopted it for doing things it’s not suitable for)

Replies (3)

@GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 2026-05-18 11:42

AI has an interesting economic trait in that it’s very, very expensive to deploy, and made very fast progress from 2022 to 2024. That caused investors with money to believe that: Pushing the frontier was going to cost a lot of money. More than any other purported revolutionary tech. Extrapolation of past improvement meant that whoever was on the cutting edge may end up with a product with a huge paying market. So whoever wins this race would be rich, and the investment would have been worth it for them. But since 2024, we’ve seen that the cutting edge got even more expensive much faster than expected, and much of the improvements in performance now come from inference rather than training, which represents a high ongoing cost. Now, if we extrapolate from that trend line, we’ll see that the market will be much smaller for AI services at the cost it takes to provide that service, and the question then becomes whether the industry can make its operations cheaper, fast enough to profitably provide a service people will pay for. I have my doubts they’ll succeed, and we might just be looking at the industry like supersonic flight: conceptually interesting, technically feasible, but just a commercial dead end because it’s too expensive.

Open ##2849799
@whoisearth@lemmy.ca 2026-05-18 14:08

My only complaint here is that there is a lot of very, very valid use cases for “AI” specifically “Agentic AI”. We (including myself) may not like a lot of those uses because it devalues my fellow workers but it does not change the fact that it works. The problem is everyone needs to be so goddamn polarizing and god forbid we have a mature honest discussion about the tools being built and how they are changing society as we know it. We should be discussing and pushing for UBI across the world for decades now as youth unemployment is already at dangerous levels in continents like Africa (lol of course we don’t care because black people) but no instead we have asshats pushing a narrative of “AI bad”. It’s not. It has many purposes. Smarter people know this and it’s why it isn’t going away and the train is not going to stop if you don’t pull your head out of your ass. /rant I can’t wait to dip out of society and find somewhere in the middle of nowhere to live a quiet life with minimal technology in my life. I’m done with all of you. I stand by what I’ve said to my mum many times over the years. I hate people. I love persons.

Open ##2854568
@Aitolda@lemmy.world 2026-05-19 11:27

Maybe AI is a particle?

Open ##2885997