zlacker

>>kcorbi+(OP)
The cycle of these technologies is always the same:

    1. Initial introduction or release
    2. Major hype and influx of greed money. <- AI is here now
    3. Failure to live up to the hype, resulting in the tech becoming a punchline and gobs of money lost
    4. Renaissance of the tech as its true potential is eventually realized, which doesn't match the original hype but ends up very useful
    5. Iteration and improvement with no clear "done" or "achieved" milestone, it just becomes part of society

The bombardment of charlatans taking advantage of the term, coupled with commercials everywhere suggests we will soon hit stage 3 for AI. The Super Bowl commercials are usually the tipping point.

Crypto is at stage 3 now.

Not all technologies make it to steps 4-5.

Hell, I remember when social media followed the same path. And ecommerce before it. Or the web in general before that. And on and on it goes.

>>baggac+Jm
AI is at step 4, transitioning to 5

>>asicsa+Gq
When every LinkedIn thoughtfluencer is writing 3-page screeds about how they're thoughtfluencing through AI you really know you're firmly in step 2.

Likewise when breathless reporters keep asking non-AI companies what their AI strategy is, you know you're firmly in step 2. Remember when Walmart was expected to have a "metaverse strategy"?

Also worth noting that many (most?) technologies do not have a step 4 or 5. They're just permanently/indefinitely dead after the hype train goes off the rails (see: personal jetpacks)

>>potato+6z
I don't think Jetpacks are even in step one. Tech's been there but I don't think any are commercially available. They've certainly been hyped for decades, but more in the same way most sci-fi concepts are glamorized in general. Worldwide instant communication was very much a sci-fi concept 50 years ago, and today it's definitely not all rainbows and butterflies

>>johnny+LZ
Jetpacks aren't here because they're fundamentally incompatible with real-world society. Imagine giving a typical driver a jetpack or a flying car, and then think about how a traffic accident would play out.

Or in other words, we already have flying cars - but the form of a flying car that's compatible with reality is called a helicopter, and piloting one comes with a fuck ton of expensive hoops to jump through.

That's the overall problem with all the cool sci-fi tech - it's cool in an action movie, when the protagonists are the only ones who get to use it. It stops being cool and becomes either useless or dangerous, once every rando gets to use it in their daily lives.

>>TeMPOr+Y41
> Jetpacks aren't here because they're fundamentally incompatible with real-world society. Imagine giving a typical driver a jetpack or a flying car, and then think about how a traffic accident would play out.

Oh yeah, imagine a transportation technology that killed people every week. No way that would be legal. Except if it's cars, for some reason they magically get a pass.

> Or in other words, we already have flying cars - but the form of a flying car that's compatible with reality is called a helicopter, and piloting one comes with a fuck ton of expensive hoops to jump through.

We could get rid of those hoops and flying cars would still have a lower death rate than the regular kind. But they can't replicate the "our oopsies are someone else's problem" field that cars have. That's the hard part.