4 ms·
> I think we are in the middle of a steep S-curve of technology innovation We are? What innovation? What do we need innovation for? What present societal prob
by alexashka 2y ago
> I think we are in the middle of a steep S-curve of technology innovation
We are? What innovation?
What do we need innovation for? What present societal problems can tech innovation possibly address? Surely none of the big ones, right? So then is it fit to call technological change - 'innovation'?
I'd agree that LLMs improve upon having to read Wikipedia for topics I'm interested in but would investing billions in Wikipedia and organizing human knowledge have produced a better outcome than relying on a magic LLM? Almost certainly, in my mind.
You see, people are pouring billions into LLMs and not Wikipedia not because it is a better product - but because they foresee a possibility of an abusive monopoly and that really excites them.
That's not innovation - that's more of the same anti-social behaviour that makes any meaningful innovation extremely difficult.
- SoftTalker 2y agoOne of Google's founding goals was "organizing human knowledge" IIRC. They ended up being an ad company.
- achenet 2y agoIn a way, that is in alignment with their founding goal of organizing human knowledge. An ad is just a piece of data (eg Bob is selling shovels for $10 + shipping), with the additional metadata that someone really wants you to see it (eg Bob paid Google $100 to tell every person who searched for "shovels" that he's selling shovels for $10 + shipping). Selling ads is organizing human knowledge. Yes, you could argue using a market system is not the best way to do this, but it is a way to do it.
- mellosouls 2y agoI'm not sure the Wikipedia example is a strong one as that site has it's own serious problems with "abusive monopolies" in its moderator cliques and biases (as with any social platform). At least with the current big AI players there is the potential for differentiation through competition. Unless there is some similar initiative with the Wikipedias, the problem of single supplier dominance is a difficult one to see as the way forward.
- alexashka 2y agoI can solve Wikipedia's woes quite easily - Wikipedia should limit itself to math, science, engineering, medicine, physics, chemistry, geography and other disciplines that are not at all in dispute. Politics, history, religion and other topics of conversation that are matters of opinion, taste and state sponsored propaganda need to be off limits. Its mission ought to be to provide a PhD level education in all technical fields, not engage in shortening historical events and/or opinions/preferences/beliefs down to a few pages and disputing which pages need to be left in or out. Let fools engage in that task on their own time.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- christianqchung 2y agoIs this satire? All of those industries listed significant disputes. If this is serious it's a concerning view of how science actually works.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- alexashka 2y agoPlease name me these 'significant' disputes. Start with math.
- kibwen 2y agoLet's start with an easy one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice
- Der_Einzige 2y agoYou forgot to link the opposite (axion of determinancy)
- datavirtue 2y agoNonetheless, Microsoft is firing up a nuclear reactor to power a new data center. My money is in the energy sector right now. Obvious boom coming with solar, nuclear and AI.
- achenet 2y agoThis is very clever. In gold rush, shell shovels. In computing power rush, sell energy.
- datavirtue 2y agoYeah, I moved into a vanguard energy ETF. Some of this is already priced in (which makes me whince a little when buying) but the actual upside hasn't even hit yet, which will bring in a rush of activity on energy stocks. I have noticed over the decades that energy companies always do very well, especially in the long run. I was looking for renewables investments (particularly solar) but there is just too much uncertainty and the companies are so small.