3 ms·

I don't think it's getting worse, you're just becoming more aware of its limitations. It's not a knowledge engine. It's a machine learning application with a l

by hnbad 4y ago

I don't think it's getting worse, you're just becoming more aware of its limitations. It's not a knowledge engine. It's a machine learning application with a language model. It "knows" what the answers should look like and it can infer the correct answer from context some of the time but it doesn't actually know any facts and can't reason about them. That's also not what it was designed for. People fawning over its surprisingly plausible results remind me a bit of people fawning over the photorealistic quality of Toy Story or Half-Life upon release. Yes, they're technical marvels of their time but just because they're a lot closer to "the real thing" that doesn't mean they're indistinguishable. And with AI in particular there is currently a hype that seems to be at least in part a result of a shift from cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology to AI as the new VC buzzword but bringing with it similarly fantastical (read: unrealistic) claims and predictions. "General AI" (i.e. human-level intelligence) has always been 20 years in the future. Even as far back as in the 1960s. We're getting ever better at the 80% solution but the remaining 20% continue being unsolvable outside pitch decks and overexcited influencer claims.

hnbad 4y ago
I think part of the reason AI is so attractive to VC money that previously went into crypto is that while the "cynical" sales pitch of crypto is selling unregulated financial products to retail investors in a legal gray area, the one for AI is abdicating direct responsibility by introducing a convoluted rube goldberg machine in the decision making process: there is a reason EU legislation for example grants residents the right to demand human review and justification for any automated decision (e.g. on insurance claims). If you think this is a stretch consider that most "gig economy" VC money went to companies whose value proposition mostly consisted of skirting labor laws and other regulations (e.g. Airbnb opening residential space to tourism, Uber sidestepping Taxi regulations, delivery apps offloading liability to "independent" drivers, etc). "Disruption" to a large part often also refers to laws and regulations. Illegality (i.e. violating laws and regulations) only becomes a problem if you get caught and the consequences outweigh the profit.
- mcbuckeye 4y ago
  Interesting perspective. I agree, especially with your second paragraph. It almost seems like the business models on the cases you cite (and others) are in part, "let's break the law but grow quickly and seem to benefit consumers and maybe workers to some extent, such that we can force changes in the laws."

by hnbad 4y ago

hnbad 4y ago

I think part of the reason AI is so attractive to VC money that previously went into crypto is that while the "cynical" sales pitch of crypto is selling unregulated financial products to retail investors in a legal gray area, the one for AI is abdicating direct responsibility by introducing a convoluted rube goldberg machine in the decision making process: there is a reason EU legislation for example grants residents the right to demand human review and justification for any automated decision (e.g. on insurance claims). If you think this is a stretch consider that most "gig economy" VC money went to companies whose value proposition mostly consisted of skirting labor laws and other regulations (e.g. Airbnb opening residential space to tourism, Uber sidestepping Taxi regulations, delivery apps offloading liability to "independent" drivers, etc). "Disruption" to a large part often also refers to laws and regulations. Illegality (i.e. violating laws and regulations) only becomes a problem if you get caught and the consequences outweigh the profit.

mcbuckeye 4y ago
Interesting perspective. I agree, especially with your second paragraph. It almost seems like the business models on the cases you cite (and others) are in part, "let's break the law but grow quickly and seem to benefit consumers and maybe workers to some extent, such that we can force changes in the laws."