25 ms·

We already have breakthroughs. Benchmark results which have been unheard of before ML. Alone language translation got so much better, voice syntesis, voice tra

We already have breakthroughs. Benchmark results which have been unheard of before ML. Alone language translation got so much better, voice syntesis, voice transcription. All my meetings now are searchable and i can ask 'ai' to summarize my meetings in a relative accurate way impossible before that. Alphafold made a breakthrough in protein folding. Image and Video generation can now do unbelievable things. Realtime voice communication with computer. Our internal company search suddenly became usefull. I have 0 use case for NFT and Crypto. I have tons of use case for ML.

uludag 1y ago
I'm sure there's many people out there who could say that they hardly use AI but that crypto has made them lots of money. At the end of the day searching work documents and talking with computers is only desirable inasmuch as they are economically profitable. Crypto at the end of the day is responsible for a lot of people getting wealthy. Was a lot of this wealth obtained on sketchy grounds? probably, but the same could be said AI (for example, the recent sale of windsurf for an obscene amount of money).
- littlestymaar 1y ago
  > is only desirable inasmuch as they are economically profitable. The bug difference is that they are profitable because they create value, when cryptocurrencies are a zero sum game between participants. (It is in fact a negative-sum game, since some people are getting paid to make the thing work so that others can gamble on the system).
- Flamentono2 1y ago
  Crypto is not making people rich, it is about moving money from Person A to Person B. And sure everyone who got the money from others by gambling are biased. Fine with me. But in comparision to crypto, people around me actually use AI/ML (most of them).
  - nodar86 1y ago
    Every activity that is making people rich is by definiton moving money from Person A to Person B.
    - Flamentono2 1y ago
      Lets be nitpicky :) I said move money from A to B, which implies that nothing else is happening. Otherwise it would be an exchange. Sooo i would say my wording was right?! :)
- holoduke 1y ago
  Crypto is not creating anything. Its a scheme that is based on gamble. Person A gets rich. Person B loses money. It does not really contribute to anything.
exe34 1y ago
You have to understand, real AI will never exist. AI is that which a machine can't do yet. Once it can do it, it's engineering.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
Yoric 1y ago
That is absolutely correct. The problem is that the hype assumes that all of this is a baseline (or even below the baseline), while there are no signs that it can go much further in the near future – and in some cases, it's actually cutting-edge research. This leads to a pushback that may be disproportionate.
vanattab 1y ago
Which ai program do you use for live video meeting translation?
- Flamentono2 1y ago
  MS Teams, Google Meet (whatever they use, probably gemini) and wispher
parodysbird 1y ago
> Alphafold made a breakthrough in protein folding. Sort of. Alphafold is a prediction tool, or, alternatively framed, a hypothesis generation tool. Then you run an experiment to compare. It doesn't represent a scientific theory, not in the sense that humans use them. It does not have anywhere near something like the accuracy rate for hypotheses to qualify as akin to the typical scientific testing paradigm. It's an incredibly powerful and efficient tool in certain contexts and used correctly in the discovery phase, but not the understanding or confirmation phase. It's also got the usual pitfalls with differentiable neural nets. E.g. you flip one amino acid and it doesn't really provide a proper measure of impact. Ultimately, one major prediction breakthrough is not that crazy. If we compare that to e.g. Random Forest and similar models, the impact in science is infinitely more with them.
- elcritch 1y ago
  We already have a precise and accurate theory for protein folding. What we don’t have is the computational power to do true precise simulations at a scale and speed we’d like. In many aspects a huge tangled barely documented code base written by inexperienced grad students of quantum shortcuts, err, perturbative methods isn’t that much more or less intelligible than an AI model learning those same methods.
  - dekhn 1y ago
    What "precise and accurate theory for protein folding" exists? Nobody has been able to demonstrate convincingly that any simulation or theory method can reliably predict the folding trajectory of anything but the simplest peptides.
    - elcritch 1y ago
      > What "precise and accurate theory for protein folding" exists? It’s called Quantum Mechanics. > Nobody has been able to demonstrate convincingly that any simulation or theory method can reliably predict the folding trajectory of anything but the simplest peptides. No we don’t have simplified models or specialized theories to reduce the computational complexity enough to efficiently solve the QM or even molecular dynamics systems needed to predict protein folding for more than the simplest peptides. Granted, it’s common to mix up things and say that not having a computationally tractable models means we don’t have precise and accurate theory of PF. Something like [0] resulting in an accurate, precise, and fast theory of protein folding would be incredibly valuable. This however, may not be possible outside specific cases. Though I believe AlphaFold indicates otherwise as it appears life has evolved various building blocks which enable a simpler physics of PF tractable to evolutionary processes. Quantum computing however could change that [1]. If practical QM is feasible that is, which it’s beginning to look more and more likely. Some say QC is already proven and just needs scaled up. 0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding_funnel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding_funnel 1: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41534-021-00368-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41534-021-00368-4
mountainb 1y ago
One one hand, maybe it's good to have better searchable records, even if it's hard to quantify the benefit. On the other hand, now all your meetings produce reams of computer searchable records subject to discovery in civil and criminal litigation, possibly leading to far worse liability than would have been possible in a mostly email based business.
- DennisP 1y ago
  Maybe don't do crimes? If the technology provides a major boost in productivity to ethical teams, and is useless for unethical teams, that kinda seems like a good thing.
  - mountainb 1y ago
    I guarantee you that every company you have ever worked for has committed crimes and incurred various forms of potential civil liability.
    - DennisP 1y ago
      I doubt that, but even if you're right it doesn't change my point: if you're not willing to stop doing that, you'll be less productive than the firms that are willing to operate legally and ethically. And if in some industry it's really not possible to do business without committing crimes, then let's reform the criminal code to something reasonable.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

uludag 1y ago

I'm sure there's many people out there who could say that they hardly use AI but that crypto has made them lots of money. At the end of the day searching work documents and talking with computers is only desirable inasmuch as they are economically profitable. Crypto at the end of the day is responsible for a lot of people getting wealthy. Was a lot of this wealth obtained on sketchy grounds? probably, but the same could be said AI (for example, the recent sale of windsurf for an obscene amount of money).

littlestymaar 1y ago
> is only desirable inasmuch as they are economically profitable. The bug difference is that they are profitable because they create value, when cryptocurrencies are a zero sum game between participants. (It is in fact a negative-sum game, since some people are getting paid to make the thing work so that others can gamble on the system).
Flamentono2 1y ago
Crypto is not making people rich, it is about moving money from Person A to Person B. And sure everyone who got the money from others by gambling are biased. Fine with me. But in comparision to crypto, people around me actually use AI/ML (most of them).
- nodar86 1y ago
  Every activity that is making people rich is by definiton moving money from Person A to Person B.
  - Flamentono2 1y ago
    Lets be nitpicky :) I said move money from A to B, which implies that nothing else is happening. Otherwise it would be an exchange. Sooo i would say my wording was right?! :)
holoduke 1y ago
Crypto is not creating anything. Its a scheme that is based on gamble. Person A gets rich. Person B loses money. It does not really contribute to anything.

exe34 1y ago

You have to understand, real AI will never exist. AI is that which a machine can't do yet. Once it can do it, it's engineering.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

Yoric 1y ago

That is absolutely correct. The problem is that the hype assumes that all of this is a baseline (or even below the baseline), while there are no signs that it can go much further in the near future – and in some cases, it's actually cutting-edge research. This leads to a pushback that may be disproportionate.

vanattab 1y ago

Which ai program do you use for live video meeting translation?

Flamentono2 1y ago
MS Teams, Google Meet (whatever they use, probably gemini) and wispher

parodysbird 1y ago

> Alphafold made a breakthrough in protein folding. Sort of. Alphafold is a prediction tool, or, alternatively framed, a hypothesis generation tool. Then you run an experiment to compare. It doesn't represent a scientific theory, not in the sense that humans use them. It does not have anywhere near something like the accuracy rate for hypotheses to qualify as akin to the typical scientific testing paradigm. It's an incredibly powerful and efficient tool in certain contexts and used correctly in the discovery phase, but not the understanding or confirmation phase. It's also got the usual pitfalls with differentiable neural nets. E.g. you flip one amino acid and it doesn't really provide a proper measure of impact. Ultimately, one major prediction breakthrough is not that crazy. If we compare that to e.g. Random Forest and similar models, the impact in science is infinitely more with them.

elcritch 1y ago
We already have a precise and accurate theory for protein folding. What we don’t have is the computational power to do true precise simulations at a scale and speed we’d like. In many aspects a huge tangled barely documented code base written by inexperienced grad students of quantum shortcuts, err, perturbative methods isn’t that much more or less intelligible than an AI model learning those same methods.
- dekhn 1y ago
  What "precise and accurate theory for protein folding" exists? Nobody has been able to demonstrate convincingly that any simulation or theory method can reliably predict the folding trajectory of anything but the simplest peptides.
  - elcritch 1y ago
    > What "precise and accurate theory for protein folding" exists? It’s called Quantum Mechanics. > Nobody has been able to demonstrate convincingly that any simulation or theory method can reliably predict the folding trajectory of anything but the simplest peptides. No we don’t have simplified models or specialized theories to reduce the computational complexity enough to efficiently solve the QM or even molecular dynamics systems needed to predict protein folding for more than the simplest peptides. Granted, it’s common to mix up things and say that not having a computationally tractable models means we don’t have precise and accurate theory of PF. Something like [0] resulting in an accurate, precise, and fast theory of protein folding would be incredibly valuable. This however, may not be possible outside specific cases. Though I believe AlphaFold indicates otherwise as it appears life has evolved various building blocks which enable a simpler physics of PF tractable to evolutionary processes. Quantum computing however could change that [1]. If practical QM is feasible that is, which it’s beginning to look more and more likely. Some say QC is already proven and just needs scaled up. 0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding_funnel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding_funnel 1: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41534-021-00368-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41534-021-00368-4

mountainb 1y ago

One one hand, maybe it's good to have better searchable records, even if it's hard to quantify the benefit. On the other hand, now all your meetings produce reams of computer searchable records subject to discovery in civil and criminal litigation, possibly leading to far worse liability than would have been possible in a mostly email based business.

DennisP 1y ago
Maybe don't do crimes? If the technology provides a major boost in productivity to ethical teams, and is useless for unethical teams, that kinda seems like a good thing.
- mountainb 1y ago
  I guarantee you that every company you have ever worked for has committed crimes and incurred various forms of potential civil liability.
  - DennisP 1y ago
    I doubt that, but even if you're right it doesn't change my point: if you're not willing to stop doing that, you'll be less productive than the firms that are willing to operate legally and ethically. And if in some industry it's really not possible to do business without committing crimes, then let's reform the criminal code to something reasonable.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]