You’re assuming there will be a next time. When the AI bubble bursts, and it will, the whole economy will go down with it. AI companies are massively in debt and have a product that ranges from utter shit to kinda okay, and absolutely no sane way to monetize it. Everyone outside of tech, you know, the customers, fucking hate AI. It has stolen their work, jeopardized their livelihoods, wasted their resources and made the most insufferable asshats in history very wealthy.
NFT was the worst “tech” crap I have ever even heard about, like pure 100% total full scam. Kind of impressed that anyone could be so stupid they’d fall for it.
We got to use the word fungible a lot though, so that was cool
I always liked the response “go funge yourself.”
You know what? Fuck you!
Funges all your tokens
But it has no relation to fungi, which is not cool
You know, I’m something of a fun guy, myself.
Non-technical people believing in magic that can make them rich.
I know people TODAY that collect limited release, hard to get into, exclusive NFTs. The grift is still grifting, but it’s hidden in the corners of the Internet.
The technology is not a scam. The tech was used to make scam products.
NFTs can be useful as tickets, vouchers, certificates of authenticity, proof of ownership of something that is actually real (not a jpeg), etc.
NFT’s are a scam. Blockchain less so but still has no use.
NFTs were nothing but an URL saved in a decentralized database, linking to a centralized server.
That implementation of NFTs was a total scam, yes. There are some cool potential applications for NFTs … but mostly it was a solution looking for a problem. Even situations where it could be useful - like tracking ownership of things like concert tickets - weren’t going to fly, because the companies don’t want to relinquish control of the second-hand marketplace. They don’t get their cut that way.
But where specifically does it help to not have approved central servers?
Wouldn’t entertainment venues rather retain full control? How would we get out from under Ticketmaster’s monopoly? If the government can just seize property, then why would we ask anyone else who owns a plot of land?
Wouldn’t entertainment venues rather retain full control?
Pretty sure ticketmaster has all the control.
How would we get out from under Ticketmaster’s monopoly?
Using a decentralized and open network (aka NFTs).
If the government can just seize property, then why would we ask anyone else who owns a plot of land?
It’s not about using NFTs to seize land. It’s more that governments are terrible at keeping records. Moving proof of ownership to an open and decentralized network could be an improvement.
FWIW I think capitalism with destroy the planet with or without NFTs. But it’s fairly obtuse to deny that NFTs could disintermediate a variety of centralized cartels.
NFTs could have been great, if they had been used FOR the consumer, and not to scam them.
Best thing I can think of is to verify licenses for digital products/games. Buy a game, verify you own it like you would with a CD using an NFT, and then you can sell it again when you’re done.
Do this with serious stuff like AAA Games or Professional Software (think like borrowing a copy of Photoshop from an online library for a few days while you work on a project!) instead of monkey pictures and you could have the best of both worlds for buying physical vs buying online.
However, that might make corporations less money and completely upend modern licencing models, so no one was willing to do it.
If said Photoshop had a nft licensing service, it could’ve stayed online for longer. Legit old versions of Adobe software that had one-time purchase licenses can’t be activated anymore due to servers being brought down. And that’s how they want it while pushing subscriptions for 10+ years.
The exact same thing would have happened with an NFT licensing service. They would still link to obsolete servers. The problem is not a problem which NFT would solve, the problem is the problem of obsolete servers, which are very easy for adobe to fix without any useless NFT technology, if they really wanted to (but of course they don’t)
Trying to find any application for NFT, I came to the conclusion that it would work IF you and me could be the servers there, having a copy of blockchain and verifying validity of keys until we get bored and quit that. It would target one particular issue - cantralized validation on Adobe side. It’d be inefficient and all, but it may deny them some power over usage of their legitly purchased product.
Sure, but what do they get for using that system and giving up control? If they don’t agree to use it then it’s an illegal copy and you might as well pirate it.
There is nothing you mentioned which couldn’t already be done, and is in fact already being done, faster and more reliably by existing technology.
Also that was not even what NFTs was about, because you didn’t even buy the digital artwork and NFTs would never be able to include it. So it would be supremely useless for the thing you are talking about.
Existing solutions are always centralized.
The issue is this doesn’t solve a problem that isn’t already solved. One of the big arguments I always heard was an example using skins from games that can be transfered to other games. We can already do that! Just look at the Steam marketplace for an example. You just need the server infrastructure to do it. Sure, NFTs could make it so the company doesn’t control the market, but what benefit do they get for using NFTs and distributing the software then?
99.9% of the use cases were solutions looking for a problem. I could see a use for something like deeds or other documents, but that’s about it.
Yeah, Sort of.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a huge fan of NFTs and do think there’s easier ways, but I would agree that taking market control away from the companies owning it would kind of be the point (but I do think you can probably still do this concept without any NFTs).
Sure, steam could allow game trading right now with no need for NFTs whatsoever, but the point would be that I can trade a game I bought through Xbox, to someone on Steam, and then go buy something on the Epic store with the money.
And all of it without some crazy fee from the involved platforms.
But that also would probably still require government intervention to force companies to accept this. Because, again, none of the companies would actually want this. NTF or not that doesn’t change.
Yeah, it only works if they agree to honor it, which they have no obligation to do. If the government wants to step in and force them to, there’s still no need for NFTs. There could just be a central authority that the government controls that handles it. Why would NFTs need to be involved? NFTs are only as useful as the weakest point in the chain. As soon as whatever authority (the government, Steam, whatever) stops working or stops honoring it then it’s useless.
I think there’s a technical hurdle here. There’s no reliable way to enforce unique access to an NFT. Anyone with access to the wallet’s private key (or seed phrase) can use the NFT, meaning two or more people could easily share a game or software license just by sharing credentials. That kind of undermines the licensing control in a system like this.
two or more people could easily share a game or software license just by sharing credentials
So like disks? Before everything started checking hwids. Just like the comment said, it would make corporations less money so they wouldn’t do it.
Well, that’s the point. In order for that system to work as described, you would need some kind of centralized authority to validate and enforce it. Once you’ve introduced that piece, there’s no point using NFTs anymore - you can just use any kind of simpler and more efficient key/authentication mechanism.
So even if the corporations wanted to use such a system (which, to your point, they do not), it still wouldn’t make sense to use NFTs for it.
Blockchain with a central authority.
Yeah IDK…
Exactly. That’s why it’s so pointless.
I mean, the same goes for a login. People share Steam accounts too.
The whole NFT/crypto currency thing is so incredibly frustrating. Like, being able to verify that a given file is unique could be very useful. Instead, we simply used the technology for scamming people.
I think a big part of the problem with NFT is that they are so abstract people don’t understand what they can and cannot do. Effectively, with NFT, you have people that hold a copy of a Spiderman comic in hand and believe they own all forms of spiderman.
Essentially, when you boil it down, you can turn this into “it’s provable that individual X has possession of NFT identifier x,y,z”. It’s kind of like how you can have the deed to a piece of property in your desk, but that doesn’t prevent 15 people from squatting on it.
It’s so abstract you can use it to fleece people. Even after 2 years of hype, people STILL do not understand them properly.
Essentially, when you boil it down, you can turn this into “it’s provable that individual X has possession of NFT identifier x,y,z”. It’s kind of like how you can have the deed to a piece of property in your desk, but that doesn’t prevent 15 people from squatting on it.
It isn’t even that. It’s is identifying which drawer in your desk the deed is placed, but there is no guarantee that the drawer contains the deed.
Now imagine trying to explain all this to the unwashed masses… it’s no wonder the explanation they got was “buy this, it’s going to the mooooon!!!”
But it’s totally legit brah, it’s just like trading cards but on a computer bro, you can make jay pegs totally unique bro, nobody else in the world can have the same image as you brah, it proves you’re the only owner of it bro, trust me bro it’s super secure and technological bruh
It’s crazy that people could see NFTs were a scam but can’t see the same concept in virtual coins.
A large majority of “real” money is digital, like 80% non-m1 m2. The only real difference between crypto and USD is that the crypto is a public multiple ledger system that allows you to be your own bank.
I’ve heard the sales pitch, it’s a ponzi scheme with receipts. An open pyramid, so to speak. At best a volatile store of wealth.
So is fiat.
You’re not sold on the concept of money? I guess that fits right in on Lemmy.
Potentially volatile right, since who knows if/when various stablecoins might depeg
What do you mean with being your own bank? Can you receive deposits from customers? Are you allowed to lend a portion of the deposists onwards for business loans/mortgages? If not, you are not your “own bank”.
I think you mean that you can use it as a deposit for money, similar to, say, an old sock.
Banks have multiple ledgers to keep track of who owns what and where it all came from. They also use ancient fortran/cobol written IBM owned software to manage all bank to bank transactions, which is the barrier for entry.
Blockchain is literally a multiple ledger system. That is all it is. The protocol to send and recieve funds is open for all.
Locally stored BTC is when you’re the bank. For all the good and bad that comes with it.
That sounds super cool and stuff, but it has nothing to do with the essence of banking. Banks are businesses that take deposits for safekeeping and that provide credit. Banks in fact outdate Fortran by a 1000 years or so.
Oh, my apologies for not taking note of your 0.18% savings account interest rate.
Because the pyramid scheme is still going strong with them, exactly because new victims are continually falling for them. NFTs lost their hype so quickly that the flow of new victims basically completely stopped, and so the bottom went out of them much faster.
because there are some buisness that accept some crypto, mostly grey or black market ones, but respectable companies none the less.
It’s crazy that people see crypto as a scam but can’t see the same concept in fiat currencies.
Governments don’t accept cryptocurrencies for taxes. They’re not real currencies.
They don’t usually accept other nation’s currencies in general.
No, but for every real currency it’s accepted (and required) to pay taxes somewhere.
“Real currency” also gets created or destroyed by a government at whims. Anybody clutching their USD rn isn’t going to benefit in the long run.
I’m not defending other cryptocoins or anything, they might be a ponzy scheme or some other form. But in the end they at least only pretended to be that, a valuta. Which they are, even though they aren’t really used much like that. NFT’s on the otherhand promised things that were always just pure technical bullshit. And you had to be a complete idiot not to see it. So call it a double scam.
I don’t think NFTs can do that either. Collections are copied to another contract address all the time. There isn’t a way to verify if there isn’t another copy of an NFT on the blockchain.
I didn’t know this and it’s absolutely hilarious. Literally totally undermines the use of Blockchain to begin with.
No, it doesn’t, it just means that Non-Fungible Tokens are…
Fungible…
So, they’re FNFT? Or just T?
wouldn’t it be just FTs?
Copying the info on another contract doesn’t mean it’s fungible, to verify ownership you would need the NFT and to check that it’s associated to the right contract.
Let’s say digital game ownership was confirmed via NFT, the launcher wouldn’t recognize the “same” NFT if it wasn’t linked to the right contract.
But you would need a centralized authority to say which one is the “right contract”. If a centralized authority is necessary in this case, then there is less benefit of using NFTs. It’s no longer a decentralized.
Yes and no, with the whole blockchain being public it’s pretty easy to figure out which contract is the original one.
Lets say you don’t have a central authority declaring one is official. How would you search the entire blockchain to verify you have the original NFT?
The NFT is useful with a central authority though, it’s used to confirm the ownership of digital goods ex: if it’s associated to digital games then the distributor knows which contract is the original since they created it in the first place
There isn’t a way to verify if there isn’t another copy of an NFT on the blockchain.
Incorrect. An NFT is tied to a particular token number at a particular address.
The URI the NFT points to may not be unique but NFT is unique.
The NFT is only unique within the contract address. The whole contract can be trivially copied to another contract address and the whole collection can be cloned. It’s why opensea has checkmarks for “verified” collections. There are a unofficial BoredApe collections which are copies of the original one.
Yes, the URI can point to the same monkey jpg. But a different contract address means it is a different NFT.
Completely agree, but the guy I responding to thinks the monkey jpeg is unique across the whole blockchain, when that isn’t true. The monkey jpeg can be copied. There’s no uniqueness enforced in a blockchain.
The key point is that the jpeg is not the NFT
NFTs if anything are basically CryptoCurrency-based DRMs & we should always oppose DRMs
Good, now read it
NFTs are a row in a database.
They are not, in any way, DRM.
Hey, A1 is great so long as you have it on the right dish. I dunno that I’d call it a “hype train” either, because it’s been around for years!
/s
You might be waiting a long time, friend. NFTs were truly useless (besides ripping people off). AI actually has its uses and isn’t totally worthless.
Some companies are trying to do it right, looking at DaVinci Resolve’s new beta they’re trying hard to implement it in ways that leaves you in control but reduce the grind.
I don’t think it’s going to be like that :(
I think we are lucky that the NFT passed, I wasn’t betting on it.
VR and AR will get a second run once the UX is improved and power to run it becomes small and cheap enough. Quantum computing is around the corner.
Quantum computing has been around the corner for years already. Some time after the crypto boom of 2017/18 you could read articles about how crypto was going to be dead by 2025 because of quantum computers hacking the block chain with ease. Still waiting for that one.
I think that happened to many technologies that became mainstream. Also, op is about what the tech bros will jump on, so it doesn’t have to be widely useful, for example blockchain is still pretty niche.
For better or worse, AI is here to stay. Unlike NFTs, it’s actually used by ordinary people - and there’s no sign of it stopping anytime soon.
“AI” doesn’t exist. You’re just recycling grifter hype.
ChatGPT loses money on every query their premium subscribers submit. They lose money when people use copilot, which they resell to Microsoft. And it’s not like they’re going to make it up on volume - heavy users are significantly more costly.
This isn’t unique to ChatGPT.
Yes, it has its uses; no, it cannot continue in the way it has so far. Is it worth more than $200/month to you? Microsoft is tearing up datacenter deals. I don’t know what the future is, but this ain’t it.
That’s the business model these days. ChatGPT, and other AI companies are following the disrupt (or enshittification) business model.
- Acquire capital/investors to bankroll your project.
- Operate at a loss while undercutting your competition.
- Once you are the only company left standing, hike prices and cut services.
- Ridiculous profit.
- When your customers can no longer deal with the shit service and high prices, take the money, fold the company, and leave the investors holding the bag.
Now you’ve got a shit-ton of your own capital, so start over at step 1, and just add an extra step where you transfer the risk/liability to new investors over time.
I do think there will have to be some cutting back, but it provides capitalists with the ability to discipline labor and absolve themselves (I would never do such a thing, it was the AI what did it!) which might they might consider worth the expense.
Might be cheaper than CEO fall guys, now that anti-die is stopping them from using “first woman CEOs” with their lower pay as the scapegoats.
So far courts have held companies responsible for AI decision-making.
Companies will just in house some models and train it on their own data, making it both more efficient and more relevant to their domain.
Theres more than just chatgpt and American data center/llm companies. Theres openAI, google and meta (american), mistral (French), alibaba and deepseek (china). Many more smaller companies that either make their own models or further finetune specialized models from the big ones. Its global competition, all of them occasionally releasing open weights models of different sizes for you to run your own on home consumer computer hardware. Dont like big models that were trained on stolen copyright infringed information? Use ones trained completely on open public domain information.
Your phone can run a 1-4b model, your laptop 4-8b, your desktop with a GPU 12-32b. No data is sent to servers when you self-host. This is also relevant for companies that data kept in house.
Like it or not machine learning models are here to stay. You can self host open weights models trained on completely public domain knowledge already. It actually does provide useful functions to home users beyond being a chatbot. People have used llms to make music, generate images/video, see images for details including document scanning, boilerplate basic code logic, check for semantic mistakes that regular spell check wont pick up on.
Models around 24-32b range in high quant are reasonably capable of basic information processing task and generally accurate domain knowledge. You can’t treat it like a fact source because theres always a small statistical chance of it being wrong but its OK starting point for researching like Wikipedia.
My local colleges are researching multimodal llms recognizing the subtle patterns in billions of cancer cell photos to possibly help doctors better screen patients.
The problem is that theres too much energy being spent training them. It takes a lot of energy in compute power to cool a model and refine it. Its important for researchers to find more efficent ways to make them, Deepseek did this, they found a way to cook their models with way less energy and compute which is part of why that was exciting. Hopefully this energy can also come more from renewable instead of burning fuel.
Theres openAI, google and meta (american), mistral (French), alibaba and deepseek (china). Many more smaller companies that either make their own models or further finetune specialized models from the big ones
Which ones are not actively spending an amount of money that scales directly with the number of users?
I’m talking about the general-purpose LLM AI bubble , wherein people are expected to return tremendous productivity improvements by using a LLM, thus justifying the obscene investment. Not ML as a whole. There’s a lot there, such as the work your colleagues are doing.
But it’s being treated as the equivalent of electricity, and it is not.
Which ones are not actively spending an amount of money that scales directly with the number of users?
Most of these companies offer direct web/api access to their own cloud supercomputer datacenter, and All cloud services have some scaling with operation cost. The more users connect and use computer, the better hardware, processing power, and data connection needed to process all the users. Probably the smaller fine tuners like deephermes that just take a pre-cooked bigger model and sell the cloud access at a profit with minimal operating cost do best with the scaling. They are also way way cheaper than big model access cost probably for similar reasons.
OpenAI, meta, and google are very expensive compared to competition and probably operate at a loss. Its important to note that immediate profit is only one factor. Many big well financed companies will happily eat the L on operating cost and electrical usage as long as they feel they can solidify their presence in the market in the coming decades. Control, (social) power, lasting influence, data collection. These are some of the other valuable currencies corporations and governments recognize that they will exchange monetary currency for.
but its treated as the equivalent of electricity and its not
I assume you mean in a tech progression kind of way. A better comparison is that its being treated closer to the invention of transistors and computers. Before we could only do information processing with the cold hard certainty of logical bit calculations. We got by quite a while just cooking fancy logical programs to process inputs and outputs. Data communication, vector graphics and digital audio, cryptography, the internet, just about everything today is thanks to the humble transistor and logical gate, and the clever brains that assemble them into functioning tools.
Machine learning models are based on neuron brain structures and biological activation trigger pattern encoding layers. We have found both a way to train trillions of transtistors simulate the basic information pattern organizing systems living beings use, and a point in time which its technialy possible to have the compute available needed to do so. The perception was discovered in the 1950s. It took almost a century for computers and ML to catch up to the point of putting theory to practice. We couldn’t create artificial computer brain structures and integrate them into consumer hardware 10 years ago, the only player then was google with their billion dollar datacenter and alphago/deepmind.
Right, but most of their expenditures are not in the queries themselves but in model training. I think capital for training will dry up in coming years but people will keep running queries on the existing models, with more and more emphasis on efficiency. I hate AI overall but it does have its uses.
No, that’s the thing. There’s still significant expenditure to simply respond to a query. It’s not like Facebook where it costs $1 million to build it and $0.10/month for every additional user. It’s $1billion to build and $1 per query. There’s no recouping the cost at scale like previous tech innovation. The more use it gets, the more it costs to run, in a straight line, not asymptotically.
No way is it $1 per query. Hell a lot of these models you can run on your own computer, with no cost apart from a few cents of electricity (plus datacenter upkeep)
.
OpenAI is massively inefficient, and Atlman is a straight up con artist.
The future is more power efficient, smaller models hopefully running on your own device, especially if stuff like bitnet pans out.
Entirely agree with that. Except to add that so is Dario Amodei.
I think it’s got potential, but the cost and the accuracy are two pieces that need to be addressed. DeepSeek is headed in the right direction, only because they didn’t have the insane dollars that Microsoft and Google throw at OpenAI and Anthropic respectively.
Even with massive efficiency gains, though, the hardware market is going to do well if we’re all running local models!
Alibaba’s QwQ 32B is already incredible, and runnable on 16GB GPUs! Honestly it’s a bigger deal than Deepseek R1, and many open models before that were too, they just didn’t get the finance media attention DS got. And they are releasing a new series this month.
Microsoft just released a 2B bitnet model, today! And that’s their paltry underfunded research division, not the one training “usable” models: https://huggingface.co/microsoft/bitnet-b1.58-2B-4T
Local, efficient ML is coming. That’s why Altman and everyone are lying through their teeth: scaling up infinitely is not the way forward. It never was.
I fucking hate AI, but an AI coding assistant that is basically a glorified StackOverflow search engine is actually worth more than $200/month to me professionally.
I don’t use it to do my work, I use it to speed up the research part of my work.
Unlike NFTs, it’s actually used by ordinary people
Yeah, but i don’t recall every tech company shoving NFTs into every product ever whether it made sense or if people wanted it or not. Not so with AI. Like, pretty much every second or third tech article these days is “[Company] shoves AI somewhere else no one asked for”.
It’s being force-fed to people in a way blockchain and NFTs never were. All so it can gobble up training data.
What you described literally happened with blockchain, not with NFTs because by then everyone knew blockchain is fucking stupid and NFTs were just a layer of full retard on top.
In a recent study, Jain and Jain (2019) measure the valuation effect of including the words “blockchain” or “bitcoin” in corporate names using a set of ten publicly listed firms. They found that these firms earn significant positive abnormal returns that persist for 2 months after the name change announcement.
That’s because it died out before they all could, Reddit had the nft like aliens thing twitter used to let you use your nft as a profile picture. It just died out way too quick for the general tech companies to get in on it.
If it stayed longer Samsung would have worked out how to put nft tech in their phones
Ubisoft went all in on that shit. Square still dreams of nft for whatever reason, as their shitty Symbiogenesis game shows
There’s nothing wrong with using AI in your personal or professional life. But let’s be honest here: people who find value in it are in the extreme minority. At least at the moment, and in its current form. So companies burning fossil fuels, losing money spinning up these endless LLMs, and then shoving them down our throats in every. single. product. is extremely annoying and makes me root for the technology as a whole to fail.
It is definitely here to stay, but the hype of AGI being just around the corner is definitely not believable. And a lot of the billions being invested in AI will never return a profit.
AI is already a commodity. People will be paying $10/month at max for general AI. Whether Gemini, Apple Intelligence, Llama, ChatGPT, copilot or Deepseek. People will just have one cheap plan that covers anything an ordinary person would need. Most people might even limit themselves to free plans supported by advertisements.
These companies aren’t going to be able to extract revenues in the $20-$100/month from the general population, which is what they need to recoup their investments.
Specialized implementations for law firms, medical field, etc will be able to charge more per seat, but their user base will be small. And even they will face stiff competition.
I do believe AI can mostly solve quite a few of the problems of an aging society, by making the smaller pool of workers significantly more productive. But it will not be able to fully replace humans any time soon.
It’s kinda like email or the web. You can make money using these technologies, but by itself it’s not a big money maker.
AI is a commodity but the big players are losing money for every query sent. Even at the $200/month subscription level.
Tech valuations are based on scaling. ARPU grows with every user added. It costs the same to serve 10 users vs 100 users, etc. ChatGPT, Gemini, copilot, Claude all cost more the more they’re used. That’s the bubble.
Of course, I totally agree with that
Does it really boost productivity? In my experience, if a long email can be written by an AI, then you should just email the AI prompt directly to the email recipient and save everyone involved some time. AI is like reverse file compression. No new information is added, just noise.
If you’re using the thing to write your work emails, you’re probably so bad at your job that you won’t last anyway. Being able to write a clear, effective message is not a skill, it’s a basic function like walking. Asking a machine to do it for you just hurts yourself more than anything.
That said, it can be very useful for coding, for analyzing large contracts and agreements and providing summaries of huge datasets, it can help in designing slide shows when you have to do weekly power-points and other small-scale tasks that make your day go faster.
I find it hilarious how many people try to make the thing do ALL their work for them and end up looking like idiots as it blows up in their face.
See, LLM’s will never be smarter than you personally, they are tools for amplifying your own cognition and abilities, but few people use them that way, most people think it’s already alive and can make meaning for them. It’s not, it’s a mirror. You wouldn’t put a hand-mirror on your work chair and leave it to finish out your day.
If that email needs to go to a client or stakeholder, then our culture won’t accept just the prompt.
Where it really shines is translation, transcription and coding.
Programmers can easily double their productivity and increase the quality of their code, tests and documentation while reducing bugs.
Translation is basically perfect. Human translators aren’t needed. At most they can review, but it’s basically errorless, so they won’t really change the outcome.
Transcribing meetings also works very well. No typos or grammar errors, only sometimes issues with acronyms and technical terms, but those are easy to spot and correct.
Programmers can double their productivity and increase quality of code?!? If AI can do that for you, you’re not a programmer, you’re writing some HTML.
We tried AI a lot and I’ve never seen a single useful result. Every single time, even for pretty trivial things, we had to fix several bugs and the time we needed went up instead of down. Every. Single. Time.
Best AI can do for programmers is context sensitive auto completion.
Another thing where AI might be useful is static code analysis.
Not really. As a programmer who doesn’t deal with math like at all, just working on overly-complicated CRUD’s, and even for me the AI is still completely wrong and/or waste of time 9 times out of 10. And I can usually spot when my colleagues are trying to use LLM’s because they submit overly descriptive yet completely fucking pointless refactors in their PR’s.
As a programmer, there are so very few situations where I’ve seen LLMs suggest reasonable code. There are some that are good at it in some very limited situations but for the most part they’re just as bad at writing code as they are at everything else.
I’m not a coder by any means, but when updating the super fucking outdated excel files my old company used, I’d usually make a VBA script using an LLM. It wasn’t always perfect, but 99% of the time, it was waaaay faster than me doing it myself. Then again, the things that company insisted was done in Excel could easily have been done better with other software. But the reality is that my field is conservative as fuck, and if it worked for the boss in 1994, it has to work for me.
given the state of the world, I would say… weapons or drinkable water.
Biochem
The 3d tvs were quick to die compared to this.
People keep comparing AI to the likes of NFTs, the blockchain, and 3D printers. All of those were over-promised niche products but AI has already proven its worth.
They were all about what they could do, but AI is already doing it.
People keep comparing AI to the likes of NFTs, the blockchain, and 3D printers. All of those were over-promised niche products
I don’t know why you’re throwing shade at 3d printers, they’re great products that allow you to make random shit and iterate prototypes. A friend of mine has some, and along with fidgets and shit, she’s used it to replace parts that the OEMs won’t sell at reasonable prices.
Now that there are decent Text to 3D models I use AI with my 3D printer to basically talk into my computer and it divines a physical object. We’re closer to Star Trek’s Replicator than I would’ve ever thought imaginable in my lifetime. These “over-promised niche products” are simply nacent technologies that have not had the benefit of maturation.
Text to 3D models I use AI with my 3D printer
Can you please share some models you printed this way? Curious to see. I have 3D printers at home and tried few 3D models e.g. PifHUD or TripoSR but never went all the way to printing any as I didn’t find the quality sufficient. This was months ago or more so I imagine better models exist, also maybe you have a better workflow.
“AI” / LLMs ARE over-promised, over-funded product that has absolutely not proven it’s worth the energy and investment being poured in it.
I absolutely do not believe that AI has proven itself to be worth hundreds of billions of dollars that has been poured into it
“AI” doesn’t exist. You’re just recycling grifter hype.
They’re trying with “Quantum Computers” and “Humanoid Robots”. One promises magic and the other slaves, so you see the appeal for investors.
NFT, AI, “the blockchain”, 3D TVs, SaaS… I know I’m forgetting some more tech trends that have been annoying from start to finish in the past ten or twenty years.
(Sadly SaaS seems to be doing OK right now, and I suspect our Windows friends are not too far from OSaaS)
Ai has real applications and uses that can help us. NFTs do not
“AI” doesn’t exist. You’re just recycling grifter hype.
🤦♂️
NFTs also have legitimate uses. The problem is people treat them like an investment instead of, y’know, a token.
Everything an NFT can do other tech can do better and for less energy, NFTs are worthless
Ok, show me every single holder of an Ame72 piece and the respective market in real time.
(by the way Ethereum, the largest NFT chain, uses less energy than your dishwasher now)
Easily done with a registry that one could do on paper ffs, significantly less energy than my dishwasher
There’s nothing an NFT can do that other tech can’t do better and with less power
Ok show me every single holder of an Ame72 piece and the respective market in real time.
Nah, don’t really feel like doing that
Keep pretending your bullshit tech isn’t smoke and mirrors, dipshit
Nah, don’t really feel like doing that
No. You can’t do that because it’s not possible.
Keep pretending your bullshit tech isn’t smoke and mirrors, dipshit
Ahh there’s the ad hominem! Classic crypto-hater retort when you know that you’re wrong and you’re too stubborn to admit it. It’s not smoke and mirrors, it’s literally open source. You can check everything onchain. You can check the code.
Ethereum currently uses 0.0026 Annual Energy Consumption in TWh/yr. That’s for everything that’s on the network: all of defi (lending/borrowing, CDPs, insurance, mortgages, payday loans, exchanges, derivitives, etc), real world assets (RWAs, Blackrock’s BUIDL fund alone is up+364.65% YTD), NFTs/collectables, social media, gaming, identities, etc. This energy consumption is less than orders of magnitude less than netflix, paypal, gaming, etc.
Get blocked troll.
Uhhh,
Unlilke NFT’s , AI is actually doing real things?!?
I’m mean, it’s not replacing peoples jobs,
But I’m actively using it to remove noise, recognize objects, up-scaling, motion planning, create songs, create images, condense large amounts of text, christ, lots of actual useful tools…
Don’t worry mate, you’ve just entered a left wing echo chamber, they’ll still be here in a year or two going on about how the AI bubble is going to die any day now while the rest of the population is happily using it without an issue
I mean, I was a massive AI enthusiast before the hype, playing with GPT-J, GAN models and such.
…And AI is definitely a bubble that’s going to die. It’s completely ridiculous.
It doesn’t mean it will go away, but tech bros have hyped it way beyond what it actually is: a set of extremely useful tools.
You are kinda right, Lemmy (and the left wing) is pretty extreme on the machine learning hate, but “AI” is like 95% fud right now.
Yeah… I think most people mistake hating ai from hating the way it is implemented.
There are plenty of really good reasons to hate ai for the way it is being implemented (plagiarism for one). Or shitty companies replacing good employees that do a better job than an ai just for cost saving (short term profit, shareholders above anything).
I believe ai can be usefull especially for doing menial repetitive tasks. And it should be possible to implement ai in an ethical way so it can benefit anyone and not just leech.
But currently big tech is implementing it in a shitty way and they will find a way to enshittify ai (just like they did with social media).
Everyone is being lured in with “free” queries and when everyone is “addicted” and all of the competition has either gone bankrupt or bought they’ll start charging money and make the service worse.
Another thing is people focusing on the “AI vs anti-AI” argument and overlooking the “open source vs close corporate AI” war going on.
There’s a very narrow window to solidify “personal” AI before the giants capture the market and snuff everything else out. Its future is either useful tools you run on your phone/PC (or maybe in P2P swarms or among highly competitive API hosts), or it’s what you described: shitty, unethical, corporate UIs that ruin everything.
Lemmy vs Reddit (and simply being ‘anti-Reddit’ obscuring that) is an apt analogy.
It’s why, to be blunt, the broad liberal “anti AI” stance really annoys me. It feels like everyone shooting themselves in the foot.
I’m mean, it’s not replacing peoples jobs
“UnitedHealth uses AI model with 90% error rate to deny care, lawsuit alleges”
Used to be a real human would have to reject your claims.
I mean, what’s that got to do with anything?
NFT’s were always useless.
AI however has tangible uses
Comparing the two is stupid.
Just because people are trying to use AI for dumb things they don’t understand as per your example, doesn’t negate the actual real world uses of AI.
Sure. Hate/Laugh and point fingers at ignorant people that don’t understand the tech, attempt and fail to use it in certain ways.
But don’t be more ignorant than those people by thinking AI as a technology in general is some kind of short term fad that’s just going to disappear.
I just gave an example of AI taking a human job.
To me it’s one of the biggest dangers of AI. Not that it will take our jobs, but the harm it will do when it occasionally does. AI is a useful tool for people, absolutely. But dumb managers will think AI can replace entire jobs. And it will do those same jobs at a much much lower quality than even the lowest paid human would. With no room to talk to it and fix the problems like a normal human. We’re already in a situation with Uber/DoorDash/etc. were the algorithm is the boss with no room to argue with it.
Like if you thought sweatshops produced low quality, wait until AI is running things. Quality control is out the window. And that’s a feature as much as it’s a bug.
Great annecdotal fallacy you got there.
Doesn’t change anything about their argument though
