3 ms·
I think a one year gap in adoption of new tech is not that bad. Isn't it better to always go for the mature tech first ? The real change will come from the fact
by fsndz 2y ago
I think a one year gap in adoption of new tech is not that bad. Isn't it better to always go for the mature tech first ?
The real change will come from the fact that because of AI, compute will be so cheap in the coming years: https://medium.com/thoughts-on-machine-learning/a-future-of-cheap-compute-7be643af7923?sk=b5fd602d8e206cdfc128654980b94a92 https://medium.com/thoughts-on-machine-learning/a-future-of-...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- layer8 2y agoThis is assuming that new technology will grow the same as in pre-LLM times, and merely be picked up a year late. But use of LLMs is likely to cause new developments to grow and spread slower, because of the reduced visibility. It may take much longer for a new development to gain currency to the extent that it becomes sufficiently visible in the training data. This also slows competition between evolving technologies. In addition, as the article describes, the LLM services have biases built in to them even among existing technologies. It amplifies existing preferences, leading to less diversity and competition between technologies. Tech leads will have to weigh between the qualities of a technology on its own merits against how well it is supported by an LLM.