Grumbles about generative AI’s shortcomings are coalescing into a “trough of disillusionment” after a year and a half of hype about ChatGPT and other bots.
Why it matters: AI is still changing the world — but improving and integrating the technology is raising harder and more complex questions than first envisioned, and no chatbot has the magic answers.
Driving the news: The hurdles are everything from embarrassing errors, such as extra fingers or Black founding fathers in generated images, to significant concerns about intellectual property infringement, cost, environmental impact and other issues.

  • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    It’s only a matter of time 'til the “AI” bubble really pops and all those tech companies that fired too much of their workforce have to start hiring back like crazy.

    • Docus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      While there are some bubbles that need popping, especially in board rooms - i work for a large tech company that has not fired anyone because of AI. Rather the opposite, we have been expanding our AI team in the last 5+ years and have delivered succesful AI products. There is a lot more to AI than ChatGPT. Which, while impressive as a proof of concept, is not actually useful to business.

      • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        I’m so skeptical that AI will deliver large scale economic value.

        The current boom is essentially fueled by free money. VCs pump billions into start-ups, more established companies get billions in subsidies or get their customers to pay outrageous amounts on promises. Yet, I have yet to see a single AI product that is worth the hassle. The results are either not that good or way too expensive, and if you couldn’t rely on open models paid for by VC, you wouldn’t be able to get anything off the ground.

      • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s the same at my employer, which has wasted untold thousands on subscriptions to ChatGPT and CoPilot and all we’ve gotten out of it so far is a script that takes in transaction data and spits out “customer loyalty recommendations”… as if we don’t already have a marketing department for that. XD

      • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I think most people don’t understand the one fundamental thing about AI: ChatGPT, Dall-E and what not are just products produced by machine learning, not AI themselves. Machine learning is already doing a lot of work for science and it‘s utterly unthinkable to not utilize it in fields like chemistry for example. We only read about media producing LLMs because we just consume so damn much media. Maybe that‘s something we should think about.

    • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      Nobody fired workers because of AI, that’s just the narrative so they don’t have to say “we’re running out of money”.

      • SharkAttak@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        A lot of top level big brains thought they could fire people and replace them with AI, cause for them they’re like robots they see in movies.

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Not every new technology or shift in the economy is a “bubble” that’s inevitably going to “pop” someday.

        • FaceDeer@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          But this one definitely is.

          Such confidence. Why do you think so?

          Many of the shifts that have happened in the economy are a result of capabilities that existing AI models actually demonstrably have right now, rather than anticipation of future developments. Even if no further developments happen those existing capabilities aren’t going to just “go away” again somehow.

          Also worth noting, blockchains are still around and are doing just fine.

            • FaceDeer@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              7 months ago

              They are, though. The total market cap across cryptocurrencies right now is about $2.75 trillion.

              • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                7 months ago

                You misspelled “Unlicensed Securities”, and taking crypto scammers at their word when they tell you how much their bits are worth is an easy way to lose actual money. XD

                • FaceDeer@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  I’m just pointing out that they’re still there. If it’s a scam then at this point it’s one of history’s biggest and longest-running.

                  And whether any particular cryptocurrency qualifies as a security in any particular jurisdiction is a complicated question, some do and some don’t. This is about cryptocurrency as a whole so calling them an unlicensed security would not be accurate.

                  • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    Calling them a “currency” wouldn’t be accurate either.

                    And the fact that they still exist as a fraction of a shadow of their former hype doesn’t perish the fact that they have accomplished none of their stated goals.

                    Not as an untracable currency, not as a store of value, not as a medium of exchange, and most especially not as a thing to make government-issued money obsolete.

                    Cryptocurrency as a whole isn’t worth the disk space it occupies.

                  • livus@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    @FaceDeer

                    If it’s a scam then at this point it’s one of history’s biggest and longest-running.

                    Kind of an overstatement. It hasn’t even been 20 years. If it were a scam it’d be nowhere near the scale and timeframe of, say, Papal Indulgences.

                    This isn’t anything to do with your wider argument btw, just me nitpicking. Didn’t know you’d relocated to fedia.io, was that during the downtime?

          • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            7 months ago

            Blockchain is over 10 years old and still not used for its primary purpose: a currency for legal transactions. It’s way too volatile and very few institutions accept it.

            AI can’t reach its promised capability of doing everything for us automatically because it isn’t actually AI. It’s just advanced Clippy and autocomplete. It can’t replace anyone senior. It’s just a crappy intern.

            • FaceDeer@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Why do you think that’s its primary purpose? It has lots of uses. The point is that it’s doing fine, it hasn’t “gone away.” And if you need a non-volatile cryptocurrency for some purpose there are a variety of stablecoins designed to meet that need.

              AI can’t reach its promised capability of doing everything for us automatically

              Your criterion for a “bubble popping” is that the technology doesn’t grow to completely dominate the world and do everything that anyone has ever imagined it could do? That’s a pretty extreme bar to hold it to, I don’t know of any technology that’s passed it.

              It’s just advanced Clippy and autocomplete. It can’t replace anyone senior.

              So it can replace people lower than “senior?” That’s still quite revolutionary.

              When spreadsheet and word processing programs became commonplace whole classes of jobs ceased to exist. Low-level accountants, secretarial pools, and so forth. Those jobs never came back because the spreadsheet and word processing programs are still working fine in that role to this day. AI’s going to do the same to another swath of jobs. Dismissing it as “just advanced Clippy” isn’t going to stop it from taking those jobs, it’s only going to make the people who were replaced by it feel a little worse about what they previously did for a living.

              • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Why do you think that’s its primary purpose? It has lots of uses. The point is that it’s doing fine, it hasn’t “gone away.”

                Sure, that’s why I only ever hear about unregulated securities when a scam makes the news. XD

                Your criterion for a “bubble popping” is that the technology doesn’t grow to completely dominate the world and do everything that anyone has ever imagined it could do? That’s a pretty extreme bar to hold it to, I don’t know of any technology that’s passed it.

                My criterion for a bubble pop is the sudden and intense disinvestment that occurs once the irrational exuberance wears out and the bean counters start writing off unprofitable debt.

                Given that so-called “AI” is falling into the trough of disillusionment, I’d expect it to begin in earnest within a few months.

                So it can replace people lower than “senior?” That’s still quite revolutionary.

                No, it can’t, because it isn’t and cannot be made trustworthy. If you need a human to review the output for hallucinations then you might as well save yourself the licensing costs and let the human do the work in the first place.

                • FaceDeer@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  You’ve switched from saying that a cryptocurrency’s “primary purpose” is as a currency for transactions to saying that they’re securities, those are not remotely similar things.

                  Anyway. Are you aware that, assuming the Gartner hype cycle actually does apply here (it’s not universal) and AI is really in the “trough of disillusionment”, beyond that phase lies the “slope of enlightenment” wherein the technology settles into long-term usage? I feel like you’re tossing terminology around in this discussion without knowing a lot about what it actually means.

                  No, it can’t, because it isn’t and cannot be made trustworthy. If you need a human to review the output for hallucinations then you might as well save yourself the licensing costs and let the human do the work in the first place.

                  If you think it can’t replace anyone then why say “It can’t replace anyone senior”?

                  Also, what licensing costs? Some AI providers charge service fees for using them, but as far as I’m aware none of them claim copyright over the output of LLMs. And there are open-weight LLMs you can run yourself on your own computer if you want complete independence.

                  • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    You’ve switched from saying that a cryptocurrency’s “primary purpose” is as a currency for transactions

                    That was someone else’s argument, but it can’t be denied that the original use-case envisioned blockchain securities as a currency.

                    Anyway. Are you aware that, assuming the Gartner hype cycle actually does apply here (it’s not universal) and AI is really in the “trough of disillusionment”, beyond that phase lies the “slope of enlightenment” wherein the technology settles into long-term usage? I feel like you’re tossing terminology around in this discussion without knowing a lot about what it actually means.

                    I’m well aware, it’s the slope down into the trough that will pop the bubble of “AI” overinvestment. I wouldn’t be surprised if some application of LLM tech finds a profitable niche, but I’d be very surprised to see it in common use outside of automated copywriting for scammers.

                    No, it can’t, because it isn’t and cannot be made trustworthy. If you need a human to review the output for hallucinations then you might as well save yourself the licensing costs and let the human do the work in the first place.

                    If you think it can’t replace anyone then why say “It can’t replace anyone senior”?

                    That wasn’t me.

                    Also, what licensing costs? Some AI providers charge service fees for using them,

                    Those ones.

                    but as far as I’m aware none of them claim copyright over the output of LLMs.

                    Hasn’t it already been ruled that LLM outputs cannot be copyrighted, or was that just patents and I’m misremembering?

                    And there are open-weight LLMs you can run yourself on your own computer if you want complete independence.

                    Ah yes, because rolling your own unreliable text generator is so much less expensive. XD

      • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        hiring back to do what?

        Generate revenue for the shareholders.

        they don’t even need that much staff

        There’s more work to be done than there are people to do it all, lol~