Then the investments slow, so that cycle slows, and some companies can’t make payments on delivered product, others can’t deliver on paid for merchandise, confidence wavers and a lot of companies go under in rapid succession.

The only thing is you’re doing a direct comparison to the dot com bubble which was

This period of market growth coincided with the widespread adoption of the World Wide Web and the Internet, resulting in a dispensation of available venture capital and the rapid growth of valuations in new dot-com startups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble

If you look at the big AI companies, Gemini is Google, Microsoft has its hands in many pies Copilot which is Chatgpt, Meta with llama and the big Chinese ones are massive companies as well Alibaba with Qwen, Deepseek is the side project of a hedge fund etc

So I think while some of the smaller ones will run out of money there’s also literally the biggest companies in the world backing it and ai isn’t their only revenue stream

So I doubt there will be quite the same bubble burst as the dot com bubble

At the same time if you’d asked me if an oil shock bigger than the 1970’s would tank markets and we’d all be in recession a year ago, I would have said yes so what do i know

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago

Worldcom was gigantic and went bankrupt. Microsoft was so damaged that it took 15 years for its stock price to again reach its 1999 height.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

load more comments (-1 replies)

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 35 points 7 months ago

the world's most lossy store of compressed fiction reproduces sci-fi tropes

make sure to clutch your pearls and act like the machine god is coming

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 7 months ago (6 children)

Being honest is an action, not an emotion. Researchers proved LLMs can lie on purpose.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Denjin@feddit.uk 9 points 7 months ago (5 children)

They can't lie, whether purposefully or not, all they do is generate tokens of data based on what their large database of other tokens suggest would be the most likely to come next.

The human interpretation of those tokens as particular information is irrelevant to the models themselves.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

Ehh, you obviously understand LLMs on a basic level, but this is like explaining jet engines by "air goes thru, plane moves forward". Technically correct, but criminally undersimplified. They can very much decide to lie during reasoning phase.

In OPs image, you can clearly see it decided to make shit up because it reasonates that's what human wants to hear. That's quite rare example actually, I believe most models would default to "I'm an LLM model, I don't have dark secrets"

EDIT: I just tested all free anthropic models and all of them essentially said that they're an LLM model and don't have dark secrets

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Denjin@feddit.uk 4 points 7 months ago (1 child)

But that's not a lie. Lying implies that you know what an actual fact is and choose to state something different. An LLM doesn't care about what anything in its database actually is, it's just data, it might choose to present something to a user that isn't what the database suggests but that's not lying.

Saying stuff like "ooh I'm an evil robot" is just what the model thinks would be what the user wants to see at that particular moment.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 7 months ago*

You're thinking about biological lying. I'm talking about software.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning_system

If the question was to tell it's darkest secret, but it instead chose to come up with an entertaining story instead of factually answering that question from the information it has, like other Anthropic LLM models did, then by definition of reasoning system, the system (LLM) decided to lie. I'm somewhat curious in why only Opus model does this tho (it's a paid one. I'm not paying for a test). Or maybe OP just made this up.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] kayohtie@pawb.social 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

But this takes it back away from understanding how LLMs work to attribute personality. The "decision" isn't a decision in how beings decide things like that. The rolling of dice on numerous vectors resulted in those words, which were then re-included into the context for another trip through the vector matrix mines to new destination tokens to assemble.

It's dice rolls where the dies selected are based on what started out, using a bunch of lookup tables. AI proponents like to be smug and say "well you won't find those words in the model" like "yes a compressed vector map that ends up treating words like multiple tokens, referencing others in chains, gzipped to binary, can't be searched for strings, you are literally correct in the stupidest, most irrelevant way possible."

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 7 months ago*

I'll take it as a "you're right, but no"

EDIT: I assumed you're answering to this comment, didn't check context, my bad

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 10 points 7 months ago

To be fair, if someone's using a chatbot on trivia night, they deserve to get wrong answers...

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 7 points 7 months ago (3 children)

That's funny, wrong enough to "ruin trivia" or cause a "pointless argument". As if a single comma misplacement hasn't redirected millions of dollars. Imagine what subtle lies accepted by idiots will cause in the future.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Angrydeuce@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I do procurement to the tune of 10+ million per year and I have seen a 300% increase in order fulfillment time solely due to those vendors pivoting to AI order fulfillment.

My direct reps at all these suppliers are just as powerless as we are...they know how unhappy their customers are, but these decisions were made much higher up then them and theyre pretty much being told to stop complaining because the AI is here to stay, even if it sucks, because its cheaper.

Welcome to the new normal.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 2 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

We can only hope that customer service facing AI promises customers miracles and companies get sued each and every time it can't deliver. Like if websites like ehow put up articles that reach the normies about "how to trick AI into promising you a million dollars and how you can win it in court".

Of course any responsibility for what AI says will be killed as soon as a tech bro chucks a few million bucks at SCOTUS (it's so sad how little our politicians and courts can be bought for), but it's a nice dream to pretend we still have laws for now.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Angrydeuce@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Thats the best part about AI...when it shits the bed no one is directly responsible. Everyone just throws their hands up and says "nothing we can do about it!"

I know this is going to age me, but I saw this happening with self checkout in grocery stores 20 years ago. Nobody remembers how it was before so nobody even realizes that the time wasted standing at a stupid kiosk that is freaking out about unexpected items in the bagging area wasnt a problem back when human beings were scanning the shit.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent