▲ 504 ▼ We hate AI because it's everything we hate (www.spacebar.news) submitted 1 year ago by corbin@infosec.pub to c/technology@lemmy.world 206 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] JeremyHuntQW12@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (6 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] corbin@infosec.pub [S] -1 points 1 year ago (5 children) I wrote the article, Ed said that in the linked blog post: "There Is No Real AI Adoption, Nor Is There Any Significant Revenue - As I wrote earlier in the year, there is really no significant adoption of generative AI services or products." There is a pretty clear path to profitability, or at least much lower losses. A lot more phones, tablets, computers, etc now have GPUs or other hardware optimized for running small LLMs/SLMs, and both the large and small LLMs/SLMs are becoming more efficient. With both of those those happening, a lot of the current uses for AI will move to on-device processing (this is already a thing with Apple Intelligence and Gemini Nano), and the tasks that still need a cloud server will be more efficient and consume less power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] meowgenau@programming.dev 6 points 1 year ago (1 child) a lot of the current uses for AI will move to on-device processing How exactly will that make OpenAI and the likes more profitable?! That should be one of the scenarios that will make them less profitable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] corbin@infosec.pub [S] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) If the models are more efficient, the tasks that still need a server will get the same result at a lower cost. OpenAI can also pivot to building more local models and license them to device makers, if it wants. The finances of big tech companies isn't really relevant anyway, except to point out that Ed Zitron's arguments are not based in reality. Whether or not investors are getting stiffed, the bad outcomes of AI would still be bad, and the good outcomes would still be good. permalink fedilink source parent [–] voronaam@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child) I agree that this was poor wording on Ed's side. He meant to point at the lack of adoption for work/business purposes, but failed to articulate this distinction. He is talking about conversion to paid users and how Google cheated to make the adoption of Gemini by corporate users to looks higher than it is. He never meant to talk about the adoption by regular people on the free tier just doing random non-work-related things. You were talking about a different adoption metric. You are both right, you are just talking about different kinds of adoption. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] corbin@infosec.pub [S] 1 point 1 year ago* I don’t think he is talking about specifically businesses, though, because he also talks about Gemini replacing Google Assistant, which only matters in consumer products (Assistant was never an enterprise product). It’s more like he’s moving the goalposts mid-statement. permalink fedilink source parent [–] 6nk06@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago on-device processing Oh, when will I get my free phone to do this ? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] corbin@infosec.pub [S] -1 points 1 year ago (5 children) I wrote the article, Ed said that in the linked blog post: "There Is No Real AI Adoption, Nor Is There Any Significant Revenue - As I wrote earlier in the year, there is really no significant adoption of generative AI services or products." There is a pretty clear path to profitability, or at least much lower losses. A lot more phones, tablets, computers, etc now have GPUs or other hardware optimized for running small LLMs/SLMs, and both the large and small LLMs/SLMs are becoming more efficient. With both of those those happening, a lot of the current uses for AI will move to on-device processing (this is already a thing with Apple Intelligence and Gemini Nano), and the tasks that still need a cloud server will be more efficient and consume less power. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] meowgenau@programming.dev 6 points 1 year ago (1 child) a lot of the current uses for AI will move to on-device processing How exactly will that make OpenAI and the likes more profitable?! That should be one of the scenarios that will make them less profitable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] corbin@infosec.pub [S] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) If the models are more efficient, the tasks that still need a server will get the same result at a lower cost. OpenAI can also pivot to building more local models and license them to device makers, if it wants. The finances of big tech companies isn't really relevant anyway, except to point out that Ed Zitron's arguments are not based in reality. Whether or not investors are getting stiffed, the bad outcomes of AI would still be bad, and the good outcomes would still be good. permalink fedilink source parent [–] voronaam@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child) I agree that this was poor wording on Ed's side. He meant to point at the lack of adoption for work/business purposes, but failed to articulate this distinction. He is talking about conversion to paid users and how Google cheated to make the adoption of Gemini by corporate users to looks higher than it is. He never meant to talk about the adoption by regular people on the free tier just doing random non-work-related things. You were talking about a different adoption metric. You are both right, you are just talking about different kinds of adoption. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] corbin@infosec.pub [S] 1 point 1 year ago* I don’t think he is talking about specifically businesses, though, because he also talks about Gemini replacing Google Assistant, which only matters in consumer products (Assistant was never an enterprise product). It’s more like he’s moving the goalposts mid-statement. permalink fedilink source parent [–] 6nk06@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago on-device processing Oh, when will I get my free phone to do this ? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] meowgenau@programming.dev 6 points 1 year ago (1 child) a lot of the current uses for AI will move to on-device processing How exactly will that make OpenAI and the likes more profitable?! That should be one of the scenarios that will make them less profitable. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] corbin@infosec.pub [S] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) If the models are more efficient, the tasks that still need a server will get the same result at a lower cost. OpenAI can also pivot to building more local models and license them to device makers, if it wants. The finances of big tech companies isn't really relevant anyway, except to point out that Ed Zitron's arguments are not based in reality. Whether or not investors are getting stiffed, the bad outcomes of AI would still be bad, and the good outcomes would still be good. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] corbin@infosec.pub [S] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) If the models are more efficient, the tasks that still need a server will get the same result at a lower cost. OpenAI can also pivot to building more local models and license them to device makers, if it wants. The finances of big tech companies isn't really relevant anyway, except to point out that Ed Zitron's arguments are not based in reality. Whether or not investors are getting stiffed, the bad outcomes of AI would still be bad, and the good outcomes would still be good. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] voronaam@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child) I agree that this was poor wording on Ed's side. He meant to point at the lack of adoption for work/business purposes, but failed to articulate this distinction. He is talking about conversion to paid users and how Google cheated to make the adoption of Gemini by corporate users to looks higher than it is. He never meant to talk about the adoption by regular people on the free tier just doing random non-work-related things. You were talking about a different adoption metric. You are both right, you are just talking about different kinds of adoption. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] corbin@infosec.pub [S] 1 point 1 year ago* I don’t think he is talking about specifically businesses, though, because he also talks about Gemini replacing Google Assistant, which only matters in consumer products (Assistant was never an enterprise product). It’s more like he’s moving the goalposts mid-statement. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] corbin@infosec.pub [S] 1 point 1 year ago* I don’t think he is talking about specifically businesses, though, because he also talks about Gemini replacing Google Assistant, which only matters in consumer products (Assistant was never an enterprise product). It’s more like he’s moving the goalposts mid-statement. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 6nk06@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago on-device processing Oh, when will I get my free phone to do this ? permalink fedilink source parent