Yes that's what I'm talking about because that's what the article is talking about! The article is explicitly not about the ML / AI academic research. I agree t

Yes that's what I'm talking about because that's what the article is talking about! The article is explicitly not about the ML / AI academic research. I agree that's well established. What the article is about is the current hype cycle of people trying to take the newest generation of "AI" tools, of which GPT-4 is the leading edge and most widely known, and make useful products with them. And whether that is going to be a big deal or a fad is, as yet, unproven. It is super easy to say, in 2023, that "blockchain was never going to revolutionize finance". But in 2013, that was an unknown. For what it's worth, you could go back to my commenting history in that period of time to find me saying "bitcoin is never going to revolutionize finance"; I was a skeptic then. But that doesn't mean I was definitely going to be right, I was just educated-guessing, just like the people on the other side of the conversation. That guess looks to have been prescient with the benefit of hindsight, but I've been wrong about lots of stuff too - I thought the iPad was stupid, I hated "Web 2.0", I thought the Facebook IPO was doomed, the list goes on and on. My best guess is that building products on top of "generative AI" is going to prove to be a big deal, but I don't know that, and it's hard not to be influenced by an ongoing hype cycle, is all I'm saying. > For any AI application, the world is different. If we simply replace AI with “automated system” we can see why. Pretty much every company would like to replace their workers with machines. And maybe machines can do things that humans would never be able to do (for example, search the entire internet for a very specific topic). Sure, but again, we just don't know yet if the "AI Engineering" thing this article is talking about is going to, in any way, turn into any of that, or if it's going to be more of a bust.