5 ms·

There is no elaboration on why he said that or the context. > Prince also took shots at the major cloud providers, especially Amazon, during the talk about the

by Oras 3y ago

There is no elaboration on why he said that or the context. > Prince also took shots at the major cloud providers, especially Amazon, during the talk about the infrastructure side of AI. He pointed to the shortage of GPUs as one of his top concerns about both the current infrastructure and lack of competition in AI, but argued this problem is “somewhat artificial.” I was expecting to see a point of view, reasons, or examples, but the article is just clickbait.

_bohm 3y ago
Yeah, the article really has no more information than the headline
- EGreg 3y ago
  Most people reading articles are wasting their time. That’s all
  - falcor84 3y ago
    That's an interesting take. And what's your take about the utility of commenting about an article without reading it?
    - EGreg 3y ago
      I was just making a parody of what the article title was. Sorry but we don't bother to back up our claims.
- CrzyLngPwd 3y ago
  It's a clickbait headline.
  - rs999gti 3y ago
    > It's a clickbait headline. It is but this is part of the hype cycle, "leaders" in the space make proclamations, which in five years if they are correct makes them seen as visionaries.
rewmie 3y ago
[dead]
wredue 3y ago
I remember a story a HN user shared about how they lifted their businesses reporting and switched it out for an AI instead. I guarantee that business is lighting money on fire.
- etothepii 3y ago
  It depends. I worked at a large bank on a reporting platform that made it easy to do SQL on data from all sorts of sources (CSV, Excel, JSON, calculations, etc) and use that data as the basis for another report. We were always fighting for funding. Our director found a team that (somehow!?) was responsible for a million reports and was convinced that this was our golden ticket. When he took it up with his management her preferred option was to switch the million reports off and see if anyone noticed. If no one is consuming the business reporting it's probably cheaper to have it produced by AI and of the same value.
  - TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
    > If no one is consuming the business reporting it's probably cheaper to have it produced by AI and of the same value. Wait. Why produce it at all?
    - thwarted 3y ago
      It's the same short-sighted logic that leads to job seekers using LLMs to convert their experience bullet points into resume prose and hiring managers to use LLMs to summarize resume prose into bullet points. Or marketers using LLMs to write spam that no one wants to read anyway. There's a lot of "look at how much more efficiently this garbage can be created!" going around.
    - etothepii 3y ago
      Because if your job is to produce the report all you care about is producing the report.
hooby 3y ago
It would seem quite predictable that AI is going to follow the same trend as all disruptive technologies: * First hundreds of companies rush into the new space * Then market leaders do emerge * Then the market consolidates And in the end, only a few of those hundreds will remain - and most will go under, and in many cases the founders of those that did went under will then - with the power of hindsight - admit, that they never had a plausible shot at becoming market leader in the first place. Isn't that just how it always goes?
- naveen99 3y ago
  Hindsight probability = Bayesian oxymoron
- deadbabe 3y ago
  Yup. This is how it happened with social networks, mobile apps…
- nostrademons 3y ago
  Except it's not really a disruptive technology. It's (primarily) a sustaining technology. In Clayton Christensen's original work, disruptive innovations are worse than existing alternatives in the dimensions that existing markets care about, but they're either cheaper (think of microcomputers vs. minicomputers) or have same other attribute that makes them appeal to a new market segment (think of portability for laptops & cell phones, or ease of publishing for social media). This makes them create new market segments among new customers doing new things - think of how crypto's use cases have been DeFi protocols and NFTs, while it's utterly failed as a currency. Sustaining innovations, by contrast, are ones that deliver better performance for an existing customer's existing use cases. Think of faster CPU speed, bigger hard drive capacity, more pixels on a camera. If a technology is better at any use case that people are already making money off of, it's not a disruptive technology, because by definition those are worse at existing use cases but let people do things they haven't been doing before. There are probably some AI-related disruptive startups out there that will apply it to use-cases that are not currently computerized. But by-and-large, it targets existing use-cases, for the simple reason that you need training data to build the AI in the first place. That gives an advantage to incumbents who have the training data and massive amounts of capital to train the AIs in the first place.
PatronBernard 3y ago
There's an article under there? Couldn't see it due to a paywall and the cookie pop-ups...
nothercastle 3y ago
Its a pretty normal adoption curve for every couple hundred pets.com you eventually get an Amazon. But you get a lot of losers along the way that get mostly forgotten or consolidated into the final product
fnordpiglet 3y ago
The reasons and rationale are fairly obvious. He runs a competing business and he’s speaking to a specific customer segment hoping to convince them that his business is efficient and benevolent compared to the megacoros he competes against. Taking the CEO of a for profits word that their competitors are somehow worse than their own company is the height of credulity. It may very well be true, but the source is so biased as to be entirely unbelievable.
charles_f 3y ago
Yes, no substance for why he thinks that, or even exactly what he means by that. It feels more like a tweet than a real story, there's no structure, no direction, no conclusion. It's citing two quotes and adding no analysis on top of it. - CEO of cloudflare said companies are spending a lot of money and that's probably a worthless investment, and cloud providers are overcharging customers. - CEO of pager duty answered that employees are finding use cases they want automated and usually that's stuff they don't want to do - end of story.

by Oras 3y ago

_bohm 3y ago

Yeah, the article really has no more information than the headline

EGreg 3y ago
Most people reading articles are wasting their time. That’s all
- falcor84 3y ago
  That's an interesting take. And what's your take about the utility of commenting about an article without reading it?
  - EGreg 3y ago
    I was just making a parody of what the article title was. Sorry but we don't bother to back up our claims.
CrzyLngPwd 3y ago
It's a clickbait headline.
- rs999gti 3y ago
  > It's a clickbait headline. It is but this is part of the hype cycle, "leaders" in the space make proclamations, which in five years if they are correct makes them seen as visionaries.

rewmie 3y ago

[dead]

wredue 3y ago

I remember a story a HN user shared about how they lifted their businesses reporting and switched it out for an AI instead. I guarantee that business is lighting money on fire.

etothepii 3y ago
It depends. I worked at a large bank on a reporting platform that made it easy to do SQL on data from all sorts of sources (CSV, Excel, JSON, calculations, etc) and use that data as the basis for another report. We were always fighting for funding. Our director found a team that (somehow!?) was responsible for a million reports and was convinced that this was our golden ticket. When he took it up with his management her preferred option was to switch the million reports off and see if anyone noticed. If no one is consuming the business reporting it's probably cheaper to have it produced by AI and of the same value.
- TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
  > If no one is consuming the business reporting it's probably cheaper to have it produced by AI and of the same value. Wait. Why produce it at all?
  - thwarted 3y ago
    It's the same short-sighted logic that leads to job seekers using LLMs to convert their experience bullet points into resume prose and hiring managers to use LLMs to summarize resume prose into bullet points. Or marketers using LLMs to write spam that no one wants to read anyway. There's a lot of "look at how much more efficiently this garbage can be created!" going around.
  - etothepii 3y ago
    Because if your job is to produce the report all you care about is producing the report.

hooby 3y ago

It would seem quite predictable that AI is going to follow the same trend as all disruptive technologies: * First hundreds of companies rush into the new space * Then market leaders do emerge * Then the market consolidates And in the end, only a few of those hundreds will remain - and most will go under, and in many cases the founders of those that did went under will then - with the power of hindsight - admit, that they never had a plausible shot at becoming market leader in the first place. Isn't that just how it always goes?

naveen99 3y ago
Hindsight probability = Bayesian oxymoron
deadbabe 3y ago
Yup. This is how it happened with social networks, mobile apps…
nostrademons 3y ago
Except it's not really a disruptive technology. It's (primarily) a sustaining technology. In Clayton Christensen's original work, disruptive innovations are worse than existing alternatives in the dimensions that existing markets care about, but they're either cheaper (think of microcomputers vs. minicomputers) or have same other attribute that makes them appeal to a new market segment (think of portability for laptops & cell phones, or ease of publishing for social media). This makes them create new market segments among new customers doing new things - think of how crypto's use cases have been DeFi protocols and NFTs, while it's utterly failed as a currency. Sustaining innovations, by contrast, are ones that deliver better performance for an existing customer's existing use cases. Think of faster CPU speed, bigger hard drive capacity, more pixels on a camera. If a technology is better at any use case that people are already making money off of, it's not a disruptive technology, because by definition those are worse at existing use cases but let people do things they haven't been doing before. There are probably some AI-related disruptive startups out there that will apply it to use-cases that are not currently computerized. But by-and-large, it targets existing use-cases, for the simple reason that you need training data to build the AI in the first place. That gives an advantage to incumbents who have the training data and massive amounts of capital to train the AIs in the first place.

PatronBernard 3y ago

There's an article under there? Couldn't see it due to a paywall and the cookie pop-ups...

nothercastle 3y ago

Its a pretty normal adoption curve for every couple hundred pets.com you eventually get an Amazon. But you get a lot of losers along the way that get mostly forgotten or consolidated into the final product

fnordpiglet 3y ago

The reasons and rationale are fairly obvious. He runs a competing business and he’s speaking to a specific customer segment hoping to convince them that his business is efficient and benevolent compared to the megacoros he competes against. Taking the CEO of a for profits word that their competitors are somehow worse than their own company is the height of credulity. It may very well be true, but the source is so biased as to be entirely unbelievable.

charles_f 3y ago

Yes, no substance for why he thinks that, or even exactly what he means by that. It feels more like a tweet than a real story, there's no structure, no direction, no conclusion. It's citing two quotes and adding no analysis on top of it. - CEO of cloudflare said companies are spending a lot of money and that's probably a worthless investment, and cloud providers are overcharging customers. - CEO of pager duty answered that employees are finding use cases they want automated and usually that's stuff they don't want to do - end of story.