4 ms·
GenAI skeptics and evangelists spend a lot of time talking past each other. The way I see it is that there are three camps, which you can see in the comments in
by alangibson 2y ago
GenAI skeptics and evangelists spend a lot of time talking past each other. The way I see it is that there are three camps, which you can see in the comments in this thread.
Camp 1 is the Ilyas that are convinced they're building a digital god before 2030.
Camp 2 are people that see a very useful tool that's going to change the world for the better.
Camp 3 (my camp) thinks Camp 1 is getting high on their own supply. We often talk to Camp 2 like they are Camp 1, but we shouldn't. We think GenAI is very useful but will likely in the end be used for negative purposes, the way the Internet was perverted into a surveillance and disinformation machine.
- Zambyte 2y agoI feel like I sit between camp 2 and 3. I think there will continue to be very massive negative consequences, but as someone lucky enough to be able to run LLMs locally, I think it will change my world for the better, and improve how I interface with knowledge on the internet.
- xracy 2y agoReading the comments in this post, I definitely see Camp 1. I could have a conversation with Camp 2/3. I'm more skeptical than Camp 3, because of the large cost associated with generating this information. Like, what would AI be used for that we weren't already able to do with the existing technologies we had. I don't see a market for GenAI. It seems like a gold rush but without any gold. How do companies turn a profit off of this when all of the investor cash faucets dry up? I see how the shovel companies (nvidia, amd) make money. I could see how cloud companies could make money if they weren't "getting high off their own supply." The number of companies I've seen with major PR blunders from AI being added to their product, and immediately hallucinating something awful, tells me the market for this is just investors chasing their own hype.