3 ms·
Wow. I did not imagine I would ever agree with Goldman Sachs on anything in my life. Now, I do think it has its uses, but it's once again way overhyped like a
by wkat4242 2y ago
Wow.
I did not imagine I would ever agree with Goldman Sachs on anything in my life.
Now, I do think it has its uses, but it's once again way overhyped like all the hypes that came before it. As always there is a certain use to it but it's way overblown.
- hypeatei 2y agoAnd we're adding browser APIs for it! What could go wrong?
- robotnikman 2y agoI think it's great in specific use cases, like the meeting discussion overview in teams. The problems come when you think you can build one AI that can do anything and everything, or tackle problems with a wide scope, or start using the AI as an infallible source of information. It seems like a lot of people were expecting the latter to be true.
- HenryBemis 2y agoWait until the moment that they can monetize it/save a bunch of money. Then see them dropping 5000-10000 employees globally because 'shareholders are pressing us to...' Some banks that develop their own applications will start using it heavily when they will realize that their in-house trading platform can execute orders 0.0001 seconds faster (or something insanely small). I strongly believe that the only thing that will hold AI/LLMs back is regulation, and nothing else.
- kibwen 2y ago> like the meeting discussion overview in teams Amusingly, Microsoft had an autosummarize feature in Word as far back as, like, 1997. The fact that this appears to be the rare feature that actually got removed from Word could be an indication that this use case might not be as compelling to users as one might think.
- wkat4242 2y agoI think it was more because it was no good at that time and couldn't be relied upon. For all their flaws, summarisation is something LLMs do pretty well. I think the chat feature is also really helpful "tell me more about this aspect" kind of thing. That really helps make the summary more tailored to your needs.
- brookst 2y agoIt’s overhyped like the internet was in 1995.
- ls612 2y agoExactly. I’ve thought since ChatGPT first took the world by storm that the directional promises of AI were completely correct but the hardware isn’t at all there yet. The dot com bubble crashed yet the Internet is more important than ever today.
- kibwen 2y agoIt's overhyped like the time everyone told us cryptocurrencies in 2015 were like the internet in 1995.
- GaggiX 2y agoHave they? AI compared to cryptocurrency has already been deployed and battle tested on billions of users, just think of BERT used on Google queries, all the models used for moderation and recommendation on social media (probably the whole reason why TikTok is so popular), translation, captioning etc... It really seems quite different.
- Jensson 2y agoHow is that different from bitcoin being used as currency in many places all over the world? You used to be able to go and buy a pizza using a bitcoin transaction, then that regressed but at the time it looked like bitcoin might actually be the future. Turns out there were some problems that crypto currencies hadn't solved yet, and those still aren't solved. At the time people expected the tech to advance to solve all those things, but they failed to do so. Same thing applies to current day AI, in order to revolutionize the world like the hype expects they need more things that are completely unknown whether we are actually able to solve or not. Until those things are solved generative AI is just new search, translation and some funny pictures. Useful but not that world changing. Internet 1995 you could already connect and talk to people from all over the world in social networks, do banking, shopping etc, all the technical problems were already solved, people just hadn't caught up to it yet. Internet just needed social changes to happen, generative AI still requires technological breakthroughs.
- mandmandam 2y agoHere's the thing though: You don't agree. Not really. Because Goldman Sachs have been using AI for well over a decade. They're saying one (popular right now) thing, and very much doing another (quietly). Their employees are capitalizing on this latest AI boom [1] to make their efficiency go way up, radically changing their processes... And a lot of people who were slow to grasp what AI can do for their workflow are being made redundant [2]. I can only imagine what those people laid off are thinking of this statement. 1 - https://www.wsj.com/articles/goldman-sachs-deploys-its-first-generative-ai-tool-across-the-firm-cd94369b https://www.wsj.com/articles/goldman-sachs-deploys-its-first... 2 - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=goldman+sachs+layoffs https://duckduckgo.com/?q=goldman+sachs+layoffs
- OutOfHere 2y agoIt's 100% stock market manipulation; nothing more and nothing less.
- senectus1 2y agoI like to think that its nice to see that Goldman Sachs agree with me for a change. I came to this conclusion a while ago :-P
- anal_reactor 2y agoI strongly believe that AI is the next big thing, but there's no point in discussing things, because there's no empirical evidence either way. There was no evidence that internet would take off, and there was no evidence that crypto wouldn't.
- MrVandemar 2y agoBut unlike “AI”, unlike “Crypto”, the internet wasn't initially hyped through the roof, and people had no expectations of it, and it came from academia/military, and not “OMG! I'm an buzzword spouting entrepreneur and I need me some investment dollars so I can grow and cash out and retire.”
- anal_reactor 2y agoever heard of dotcom bubble
- MrVandemar 2y agoMany years after the technology was widespread, yes. Unlike “Crypto” and “AI” which are all underpinned by short-term “get rich quick” thinking.