Majority of AI Researchers Say Tech Industry Is Pouring Billions Into a Dead End
-
I agree that it's editorialized compared to the very neutral way the survey puts it. That said, I think you also have to take into account how AI has been marketed by the industry.
They have been claiming AGI is right around the corner pretty much since chatGPT first came to market. It's often implied (e.g. you'll be able to replace workers with this) or they are more vague on timeline (e.g. OpenAI saying they believe their research will eventually lead to AGI).
With that context I think it's fair to editorialize to this being a dead-end, because even with billions of dollars being poured into this, they won't be able to deliver AGI on the timeline they are promising.
There are plenty of back-office ticket-processing jobs that can, and have been, replaced by current-gen AI.
-
I have been shouting this for years. Turing and Minsky were pretty up front about this when they dropped this line of research in like 1952, even lovelace predicted this would be bullshit back before the first computer had been built.
The fact nothing got optimized, and it still didn't collapse, after deepseek? kind of gave the whole game away. there's something else going on here. this isn't about the technology, because there is no meaningful technology here.
Why didn't you drop the quotes from Turing, Minsky, and Lovelace?
-
Why didn't you drop the quotes from Turing, Minsky, and Lovelace?
because finding the specific stuff they said, which was in lovelace's case very broad/vague, and in turing+minsky's cases, far too technical for anyone with sam altman's dick in their mouth to understand, sounds like actual work. if you're genuinely curious, you can look up what they had to say. if you're just here to argue for this shit, you're not worth the effort.
-
Good ideas are dime a dozen. Implementation is the game.
Universities may churn out great papers, but what matters is how well they can implement them. Private entities win at implementation.
The corporate implementations are mostly crap though. With a few exceptions.
What’s needed is better “glue” in the middle. Larger entities integrating ideas from a bunch of standalone papers, out in the open, so they actually work together instead of mostly fading out of memory while the big implementations never even know they existed.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I went to CES this year and I sat on a few ai panels. This is actually not far off. Some said yah this is right but multiple panels I went to said that this is a dead end, and while usefull they are starting down different paths.
Its not bad, just we are finding it's nor great.
-
I used to support an IVA cluster. Now the only thing I use AI for is voice controls to set timers on my phone.
I use chatgpt daily in my business. But I use it more as a guide then a real replacement.
-
Yes, and maybe finding information right in front of them, and nothing more
Analyzing text from a different point of view than your own. I call that "synthetic second opinion"
-
That may be true technologically. But if the economics don't add up it's a bubble.
Even the open models released today you can run on your own can boost your productivity massively if you know what you’re doing. Most people here are just too daft to know what they’re doing and parrot whatever shite memes have told them to think.
-
Ya about as revolutionary as my left nut
Does your left nut give people 20:10 vision? Because AI already is. Can it detect cancer before a human can? Is it accelerating fighting antibiotic resistance, protein synthesis, and testing new medications?
Shut the fuck up you clueless eejit.
-
Does your left nut give people 20:10 vision? Because AI already is. Can it detect cancer before a human can? Is it accelerating fighting antibiotic resistance, protein synthesis, and testing new medications?
Shut the fuck up you clueless eejit.
Does your left nut give people 20:10 vision? Because AI already is. Can it detect cancer before a human can? Is it accelerating fighting antibiotic resistance, protein synthesis, and testing new medications?
Yes. Believe it or not my left nut can do those things.
-
Why would you need anyone to buy your products when you can just enjoy them yourself?
Because there's always a bigger fish out there to get you. Or that's what trillionaires will tell themselves when they wage a robotic war. This system isn't made to last the way it's progressing right now.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I'm a software developer and I know that AI is just the shiny new toy from which everyone uses the buzzword to generate investment revenue.
99% of the crap people use it for us worthless. It's just a hammer and everything is a nail.
It's just like "the cloud" was 10 years ago. Now everyone is back-pedaling from that because it didn't turn out to be the panacea that was promised.
-
Really good photography is actually pretty hard and the best photographers are in high demand.
It involves a ton of settings for the camera, frequently post processing to balance out anything that wasn't perfect during the shoot. Plus there is a ton of blocking, lighting, and if doing portraits and other planned shoots there is a lot of directing involved in getting the subjects to be in the right positions/showing the right emotions, etc. Even shooting nature requires a massive amount of planning and work beyond a few camera settings.
Hell, even stock photos tend to be a lot of work to set up!
If you think that someone taking a photo in focus with adequate lighting and posted it to instagram is the same as professional photography, then you have no idea what is involved.
it could also be me being bitter about how schools don't ever offer the raw image files after you pay for the photo. If some asshole wants to ruin the image with post processing they should at least be forced to give the raw to the client.
-
System shared this topic on
