zlacker

[parent] [thread] 16 comments
1. dartos+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-01-21 23:24:28
The fallout is going to be insane when the AI bubble pops.
replies(4): >>ameliu+M2 >>fuzzte+R2 >>riku_i+e5 >>Der_Ei+Zd
2. ameliu+M2[view] [source] 2025-01-21 23:43:36
>>dartos+(OP)
Not sure about that. ChatGPT is much greater than Google Search ever was, and that wasn't a bubble.
replies(2): >>stacks+s4 >>dwnw+n5
3. fuzzte+R2[view] [source] 2025-01-21 23:44:18
>>dartos+(OP)
cocks ear ... can hear it poppin already
◧◩
4. stacks+s4[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-01-21 23:53:15
>>ameliu+M2
ChatGPT may be better than Google Search in content but at end of day, you have to make money and last report I saw, ChatGPT is burning through money at prestigious rate.
replies(2): >>scarmi+Ij >>Davidz+kR
5. riku_i+e5[view] [source] 2025-01-21 23:58:40
>>dartos+(OP)
initiators will cash out by that time one way or another
◧◩
6. dwnw+n5[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-01-21 23:59:42
>>ameliu+M2
Not sure about that.
7. Der_Ei+Zd[view] [source] 2025-01-22 01:07:04
>>dartos+(OP)
The folks who listen to you and don't see the fact that we are entering a weak singularity deserve to be destitute when this is all over.
replies(1): >>dartos+kt
◧◩◪
8. scarmi+Ij[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-01-22 01:43:13
>>stacks+s4
Training, yes, but they recoup inference costs through subscriptions.
replies(2): >>dartos+Xj >>Davidz+rR
◧◩◪◨
9. dartos+Xj[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-01-22 01:45:12
>>scarmi+Ij
Didn’t Altman say they’re losing money on the $200 subscription tier?

Inference isn’t cheap either.

◧◩
10. dartos+kt[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-01-22 02:48:28
>>Der_Ei+Zd
“Weak singularity” meaning what?

Technology advancing more quickly year over year?

That’s a crazy notion and I’ll be sure everyone knows.

Also, what a wild thing to say. “People like you deserve to live in poverty because you don’t think we live in a sci-fi world.”

Calm down, dude.

replies(1): >>lmm+pz
◧◩◪
11. lmm+pz[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-01-22 03:42:36
>>dartos+kt
> “Weak singularity” meaning what?

> Technology advancing more quickly year over year?

> That’s a crazy notion and I’ll be sure everyone knows.

The version I heard from an economist was something akin to a second industrial revolution, where the pace of technological development increases permanently. Imagine a transition from Moore's law-style doubling every year and a half, to doubling every week and a half. That wouldn't be a true "singularity" (nothing would be infinite), but it would be a radical change to our lives.

replies(1): >>dartos+7F
◧◩◪◨
12. dartos+7F[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-01-22 04:40:41
>>lmm+pz
The pace of technological development has always been permanently increasing.

We’ve always been getting better at making things better.

replies(1): >>lmm+8G
◧◩◪◨⬒
13. lmm+8G[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-01-22 04:50:32
>>dartos+7F
> The pace of technological development has always been permanently increasing.

Not in the same way though. The pace of technological development post-industrial-revolution increased a lot faster - technological development was exponential both before and after, but it went from exponential with a doubling time of maybe a century, to a Moore's law style regime where the doubling time is a couple of years. Arguably the development of agriculture was a similar phase change. So the point is to imagine another phase change on the same scale.

replies(1): >>dartos+sH
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
14. dartos+sH[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-01-22 05:06:41
>>lmm+8G
You keep mentioning moore’s law, but that specifically applied to the amount of transistors on a die, not the rate of general technological advancement.

Regardless, I don’t see any change in this pattern. We’re advancing faster than ever before, just like always.

We’ve been doing statistical analysis and prediction for years now. It’s just getting better faster, like always.

I don’t see this big change in the rate of advancement. There’s just a lot more media buzz around it right now causing a bubble.

There was a big visible jump in text generation capabilities a few years ago (which was preceded by about 6 years of incremental NLP advances) and since then we’ve seen paced, year over year advances in that field.

As a medical layman, I imagine that alpha fold may really push the rate of pharmaceutical advances.

But I see no indication for a general jump in the rate of rate of technological advancement.

replies(1): >>lmm+1I
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
15. lmm+1I[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-01-22 05:12:49
>>dartos+sH
> that specifically applied to the amount of transistors on a die, not the rate of general technological advancement.

Sure. But you can look at things like GDP growth rates and see the same thing.

> I don’t see this big change in the rate of advancement. There’s just a lot more media buzz around it right now causing a bubble.

Maybe. I'm just trying to give a sense of what the concept of a "weak singularity" is. I don't have a view on whether we're actually going to have one or not.

◧◩◪
16. Davidz+kR[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-01-22 06:50:06
>>stacks+s4
reminds me of a scene from the Matrix. "Tell me Mr. Anderson, what use is a phone call when you can't speak"
◧◩◪◨
17. Davidz+rR[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-01-22 06:51:26
>>scarmi+Ij
subscriptions are just to sustain them until the endgame
[go to top]