4 ms·

AI hype-bros like to complain that real AI experts are too much concerned about debunking current AI then improving it - but the truth is that debunking bad AI

AI hype-bros like to complain that real AI experts are too much concerned about debunking current AI then improving it - but the truth is that debunking bad AI IS improving AI. Science is a process of trial and error which only works by continuously questioning the current state.

neepi 1y ago
Indeed. I completely agree with this. My objection to the whole thing is the AI hype bros, which is really the funding solicitation facade over everything rather the truth, only has one outcome and that is that it cannot be sustained. At that point all investor confidence disappears, the money is gone and everyone loses access to the tools that they suddenly built all their dependencies on because it's all proprietary service model based. Which is why I am not poking it with a 10 foot long shitty stick any time in the near future. The failure mode scares me, not the technology which arguably does have some use in non-idiot hands.
- wongarsu 1y ago
  A lot of the best internet services came around in the decade after the dot-com crash. There is a chance Anthropic or OpenAI may not survive when funding suddenly dries up, but existing open weight models won't be majorly impacted. There will always be someone willing to host DeepSeek for you if you're willing to pay. And while it will be sad to see model improvements slow down when the bubble bursts there is a lot of untapped potential in the models we already have. Especially as they become cheaper and easier to run
  - neepi 1y ago
    Someone might host DeepSeek for you but you'll pay through the nose for it and it'll be frozen in time because the training cost doesn't have the revenue to keep the ball rolling. I'm not sure the GPU market won't collapse with it either. Possibly taking out a chunk of TSMC in the process, which will then have knock on effects across the whole industry.
    - wongarsu 1y ago
      There are already inference providers like DeepInfra or inference.net whose entire business model is hosted inference of open-source models. They promise not to keep or use any of the data and their business model has no scaling effects, so I assume they are already charging a fair market rate where the price covers the costs and returns a profit. The GPU market will probably take a hit. But the flip side of that is that the market will be flooded with second-hand enterprise-grade GPUs. And if Nvidia needs sales from consumer GPUs again we might see more attractive prices and configurations there too. In the short term a market shock might be great for hobby-scale inference, and maybe even training (at the 7B scale). In the long term it will hurt, but if all else fails we still have AMD who are somehow barely invested in this AI boom
xoac 1y ago
Yeah this is history repeating. See for example less known “Dreyfuss affair” at MIT and the brilliantly titled books: “What Computers Can’t Do” and its sequel “What Computers Still Can’t Do”.
bobxmax 1y ago
> AI hype-bros like to complain that real AI experts are too much concerned about debunking current AI then improving it You're acting like this is a common ocurrence lol
3abiton 1y ago
To hammer one point though, you have to understand that researcher are desensitized to minor novel improvement that translate to great value products. While obviously studying and assessing the limitations of AI is crucial, to the general public its capabilities are just so amazing, they can't fathom why we should think about limitations. Optimizing what we have is bette than rethinking the whole process.
dang 1y ago
Can you please make your substantive points without name-calling or swipes? This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- sieabahlpark 1y ago
  [dead]

neepi 1y ago

Indeed. I completely agree with this. My objection to the whole thing is the AI hype bros, which is really the funding solicitation facade over everything rather the truth, only has one outcome and that is that it cannot be sustained. At that point all investor confidence disappears, the money is gone and everyone loses access to the tools that they suddenly built all their dependencies on because it's all proprietary service model based. Which is why I am not poking it with a 10 foot long shitty stick any time in the near future. The failure mode scares me, not the technology which arguably does have some use in non-idiot hands.

wongarsu 1y ago
A lot of the best internet services came around in the decade after the dot-com crash. There is a chance Anthropic or OpenAI may not survive when funding suddenly dries up, but existing open weight models won't be majorly impacted. There will always be someone willing to host DeepSeek for you if you're willing to pay. And while it will be sad to see model improvements slow down when the bubble bursts there is a lot of untapped potential in the models we already have. Especially as they become cheaper and easier to run
- neepi 1y ago
  Someone might host DeepSeek for you but you'll pay through the nose for it and it'll be frozen in time because the training cost doesn't have the revenue to keep the ball rolling. I'm not sure the GPU market won't collapse with it either. Possibly taking out a chunk of TSMC in the process, which will then have knock on effects across the whole industry.
  - wongarsu 1y ago
    There are already inference providers like DeepInfra or inference.net whose entire business model is hosted inference of open-source models. They promise not to keep or use any of the data and their business model has no scaling effects, so I assume they are already charging a fair market rate where the price covers the costs and returns a profit. The GPU market will probably take a hit. But the flip side of that is that the market will be flooded with second-hand enterprise-grade GPUs. And if Nvidia needs sales from consumer GPUs again we might see more attractive prices and configurations there too. In the short term a market shock might be great for hobby-scale inference, and maybe even training (at the 7B scale). In the long term it will hurt, but if all else fails we still have AMD who are somehow barely invested in this AI boom

xoac 1y ago

Yeah this is history repeating. See for example less known “Dreyfuss affair” at MIT and the brilliantly titled books: “What Computers Can’t Do” and its sequel “What Computers Still Can’t Do”.

bobxmax 1y ago

> AI hype-bros like to complain that real AI experts are too much concerned about debunking current AI then improving it You're acting like this is a common ocurrence lol

3abiton 1y ago

To hammer one point though, you have to understand that researcher are desensitized to minor novel improvement that translate to great value products. While obviously studying and assessing the limitations of AI is crucial, to the general public its capabilities are just so amazing, they can't fathom why we should think about limitations. Optimizing what we have is bette than rethinking the whole process.

dang 1y ago

Can you please make your substantive points without name-calling or swipes? This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

sieabahlpark 1y ago
[dead]