3 ms·
The same argument can be used for anything. Personal jetpacks are the worst they’ll ever be. Doesn’t mean they’re any close to being useful.
by simianparrot 1y ago
The same argument can be used for anything.
Personal jetpacks are the worst they’ll ever be. Doesn’t mean they’re any close to being useful.
- delusional 1y agoIt's also just wrong. Plenty of things get worse.
- crossbody 1y agoNot really. E.g. clay tablets, physical books will not be meaningfully better.
- suddenlybananas 1y agoYes, but they're not going to get any worse.
- crossbody 1y ago"not getting worse" is a pretty low bar
- simianparrot 1y agoWhich is precisely my point. It's the _lowest_ bar possible.
- yencabulator 1y agoBooks are printed on worse paper these days that doesn't last as long.
- Workaccount2 1y agoWhile true, it's the speed of improvement that gives the statement gravity.
- westoncb 1y agoThe difference is the incentive to improve, and actual present rate of improvement, for models like this is far higher than it is for jetpacks. (That and certain intrinsic features at least suggest the route to improvement is roughly "more of the same," vs "needs massive unknown breakthrough".)
- r0fl 1y agoTrillions of dollars are not being invested in making jet packs any better Your comparison is incorrect
- rkozik1989 1y agoYou say assuming money is limitless and investor patience for returns is endless.
- dragonwriter 1y agoAnd if trillions of dollars were being invested in that, it would mean lots of investors being disappointed in a few years, not that jet packs were close to being useful. Not sure if that's what you are trying to say about AI, or not.
- ekianjo 1y ago> Personal jetpacks are the worst they’ll ever be Have they become better over the past 20 years?