3 ms·
The point is that given the current valuations, being good at a bunch of narrow use cases is just not good enough. It needs to be able to replace humans in ever
by CrossVR 2y ago
The point is that given the current valuations, being good at a bunch of narrow use cases is just not good enough. It needs to be able to replace humans in every role where the primary output is text or speech to meet expectations.
- MostlyStable 2y agoI don't think that "replacing humans in every role" is the line for "being bullish on AI models". I think they could stop development exactly where they are, and they would still make pretty dramatic improvements to productivity in a lot of places. For me at least, their value already exceeds the $20/month I'm paying, and I'm pretty sure that way more than covers inference costs.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago> I think they could stop development exactly where they are, and they would still make pretty dramatic improvements to productivity in a lot of places. Yup. Not to mention, we don't even have time to figure out how to effectively work with one generation of models, before the next generation of models get released and rises the bar. If development stopped right now, I'd still expect LLMs to get better for years, as people slowly figure out how to use them well.
- prawn 2y agoCompletely agree. As is, Cursor and ChatGPT and even Bing Image Create (for free generation of shoddy ideas, styles, concepts, etc) are very useful to me. In fact, it would suit me if everything stalled at this point rather than improve to the point that everyone can catch up in how they use AI.