7 points

Billions in capital should be billions in taxes.

permalink
report
reply
16 points

Remember kids, the “failure” is economic failure, not moral, not utility.

Chatgpt is a “success”. If the company is stealing your face, art, voice but it is making money, they list it as a success.

By that metric, FTX was a “success” until their fraud was revealed.

80% fail economically, how many of those 20% fail morally? How many of those 20% have real utility? (E.g. not only generating weird picture of poor children building Mickey mouse out of bottles)

permalink
report
reply
7 points

You don’t need to tabulate the moral failure. That’s 100%.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Most pieces of software fail (I’ve heard numbers in the range of 75%) according to the people who made them. 80% is only marginally higher than that, so … 😉

permalink
report
reply
4 points

Literally addressed in the first paragraph. They say 80% it’s twice the normal failure rate

permalink
report
parent
reply

And yet other studies have the people making the software say it’s a failure 75% of the time. (Keep in mind that the 75% comes from the people making it, not the people selling it who have a vested interest in claiming their product isn’t a failure.)

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Remember that AI is an extension of human understanding, knowledge and interpretation. Not a replaceable tool

permalink
report
reply
0 points

AI has existed for less than a decade. We are fine without AI. You can’t just look at something still being built, with loads of problems, and call it irreplaceable. Nobody depends on AI for their survival, they depend on water, clean air, and other resources that AI is taking away. It’s also taking people’s jobs that, again, they need for their survival.

Stop emulating Elon Musk and get some sleep.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Uhhh, AI has been around for DECADES. You are likely conflating AI as a whole with “generative AI” which has been experiencing a boom the last 5+ years. Some examples of AI include pathfinding (think of your GPS telling you how to get somewhere), chess engines (also a form of pathfinding, incidentally), and NPCs in video games making decisions based on a set of rules and states.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Oh. Well then, replace “AI” with “generative AI”. I may have been a bit confused there. In that case, we are perfectly fine without generative AI, and it has guzzled resources and manpower. For such a cost, what is the return? You can look at this Hill article, or you can look at fake studies, or other ways GenAI has been harmful. Stuff like the A* search algorithm didn’t require jumbo subsidies for it to work properly, and it isn’t making the internet as it is worse.

So that’s what I’m saying. I have yet to find an argument proving, successfully, that generative AI is worth the cost.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

This looks like a crypto bubble.

permalink
report
reply
2 points

and yet crypto recieves speculative investment to this day. Say what you will about AI, at least the end product can sometimes do something.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

20% success rate, that’s pretty high to say it would ever go away. 80% of restaurants close in the first five years, that bubble hasn’t popped.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

But it has historically over the past 50 years been dominated by franchised chains. Which is to say…terrible.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Agreed, which inevitably means chains would lower the rate of failure as well, so I imagine first timers fail at higher rates : / I always regret that I don’t eat at more hole in the walls.

permalink
report
parent
reply