3 ms·

This lines up with my whole theory around AI which I expect extrapolates to the commercial and enterprise scenarios as well based on how quickly I've seen stuff

by cjk2 2y ago

This lines up with my whole theory around AI which I expect extrapolates to the commercial and enterprise scenarios as well based on how quickly I've seen stuff canned already at my org: 1. This is really cool! How amazing! We can do so much with this. 2. User activity drops off fairly quickly. 3. Oh they want money? Lets wait until the trial expires. 4. Not renewed.

jsemrau 2y ago
That's my Heygen/D-ID story to the T.
- shw1n 2y ago
  As someone that builds in the video space myself (https://dopplio.com https://dopplio.com), these pure synthetic tools baffle me (though I do think they're cool) They weren't realistic enough for sales (we tried), and all other use-cases seem a bit forced But hey, they're growing and acquiring revenue (I think?) -- so who am I to question
  - cjk2 2y ago
    They seem to be used for making cheap shitty music videos for bands I’ve never heard of mostly.
mrweasel 2y ago
The current AI trend is running per the usual playbook. Before it was mobile apps, social media, crypto-currency and now AI. Like the other trends we'll need for the marketing to die down and see what is actually real and useful. Once we hit that point the money is gone, no more crazy funding. It will also be interesting to see if we get helpful products that makes our lives better or if it's going to be damaging as we've seen with social media or relegated to the backrooms, like crypto-currency. None of the technologies we've seen trending like this is good or bad on their own, but social media has been completely misused and rather than providing value and promoting human interaction it's used to track us and sell us stuff we don't need. Crypto-currency was, in hindsight, never going to be something that could be promoted to the average user, but is really useful as a backend technology. The current generation of LLMs have the possibility of been incredibly harmful, or extremely useful, but they aren't products in their own right. Regarding the marketing hype, I think this video from der8auer at CompuTex was funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45CvTHmt_dI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45CvTHmt_dI basically the AI label is just slapped on EVERY THING.
- rob74 2y ago
  a.k.a. the hype cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle The only question is if AI has reached the "peak of inflated expectations" yet (in this case it's really high).
- jahnu 2y ago
  > Crypto-currency ... is really useful as a backend technology. I still can't find any really useful examples anywhere. Unless we count gambling and illicit money transfers. All other associated activity appears like a rounding error compared to its non-crypto counterparts to me.
  - marginalia_nu 2y ago
    Web 3, as an idea, is actually pretty good. Its biggest problem is that it's surrounded and promoted by a bunch of cryptobros who see yet another easy grift. But at face value, if you could add a small seamless transaction cost to the web (idk, it takes 1c to read a blog post and 50c to post a blog comment), you'd basically eliminate almost every form of spam and re-align the incentives in the attention economy away from those of online advertisement. Ultimately it could just save the web from the mess it's become. The banking and cards system isn't set up for that sort of workflow. Transaction costs are too high and you'd basically tie all your online activity to your real identity. So you need something new. A distributed ledger would be almost required for future-proofing. There's an enormous juicy opportunity for rent-seeking if you assign a private entity the task of being the arbiter of every transaction of the new web; that needs to be designed out.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - JackC 2y ago
      Federated verifiers who are kept independent out of band are strictly superior to proof-of-x verifiers for a distributed ledger: lower transaction costs, wider feature space, less centralized. Proof-of-x tends towards one verifier, because it's an unregulated marketplace hence tends to monopoly. The one application where this isn't true is when regulatory risk prevents lawful verifiers -- i.e. illegal transactions. So, it's not coincidence -- proof-of-x will always be dominated by illegal user stories and desire paths as it is now, because that's where it's not strictly inferior.

by cjk2 2y ago

jsemrau 2y ago

That's my Heygen/D-ID story to the T.

shw1n 2y ago
As someone that builds in the video space myself (https://dopplio.com https://dopplio.com), these pure synthetic tools baffle me (though I do think they're cool) They weren't realistic enough for sales (we tried), and all other use-cases seem a bit forced But hey, they're growing and acquiring revenue (I think?) -- so who am I to question
- cjk2 2y ago
  They seem to be used for making cheap shitty music videos for bands I’ve never heard of mostly.

mrweasel 2y ago

The current AI trend is running per the usual playbook. Before it was mobile apps, social media, crypto-currency and now AI. Like the other trends we'll need for the marketing to die down and see what is actually real and useful. Once we hit that point the money is gone, no more crazy funding. It will also be interesting to see if we get helpful products that makes our lives better or if it's going to be damaging as we've seen with social media or relegated to the backrooms, like crypto-currency. None of the technologies we've seen trending like this is good or bad on their own, but social media has been completely misused and rather than providing value and promoting human interaction it's used to track us and sell us stuff we don't need. Crypto-currency was, in hindsight, never going to be something that could be promoted to the average user, but is really useful as a backend technology. The current generation of LLMs have the possibility of been incredibly harmful, or extremely useful, but they aren't products in their own right. Regarding the marketing hype, I think this video from der8auer at CompuTex was funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45CvTHmt_dI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45CvTHmt_dI basically the AI label is just slapped on EVERY THING.

rob74 2y ago
a.k.a. the hype cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle The only question is if AI has reached the "peak of inflated expectations" yet (in this case it's really high).
jahnu 2y ago
> Crypto-currency ... is really useful as a backend technology. I still can't find any really useful examples anywhere. Unless we count gambling and illicit money transfers. All other associated activity appears like a rounding error compared to its non-crypto counterparts to me.
- marginalia_nu 2y ago
  Web 3, as an idea, is actually pretty good. Its biggest problem is that it's surrounded and promoted by a bunch of cryptobros who see yet another easy grift. But at face value, if you could add a small seamless transaction cost to the web (idk, it takes 1c to read a blog post and 50c to post a blog comment), you'd basically eliminate almost every form of spam and re-align the incentives in the attention economy away from those of online advertisement. Ultimately it could just save the web from the mess it's become. The banking and cards system isn't set up for that sort of workflow. Transaction costs are too high and you'd basically tie all your online activity to your real identity. So you need something new. A distributed ledger would be almost required for future-proofing. There's an enormous juicy opportunity for rent-seeking if you assign a private entity the task of being the arbiter of every transaction of the new web; that needs to be designed out.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - JackC 2y ago
    Federated verifiers who are kept independent out of band are strictly superior to proof-of-x verifiers for a distributed ledger: lower transaction costs, wider feature space, less centralized. Proof-of-x tends towards one verifier, because it's an unregulated marketplace hence tends to monopoly. The one application where this isn't true is when regulatory risk prevents lawful verifiers -- i.e. illegal transactions. So, it's not coincidence -- proof-of-x will always be dominated by illegal user stories and desire paths as it is now, because that's where it's not strictly inferior.