3 ms·
Respectfully, starting one's argument with a factually invalid statement is not a good way to argue against a bubble. If by 'every' you are referring to the fou
by digitcatphd 1y ago
Respectfully, starting one's argument with a factually invalid statement is not a good way to argue against a bubble. If by 'every' you are referring to the foundation model providers, this is not 100% of the 'AI service' market and even then, I would argue that a lot of this demand will need to be answered to by companies measuring ROI after the FOMO or unreasonable expectations get settled in and right now, my primary argument is this ROI is driven by speculation rather than empirical measurement.
I have spoken with many companies and nearly all of them, when speaking about AI, have gotten to the point they don't even make any sense. A common theme is 'we need' AI, but nobody can articulate 'why' and in-fact they get defensive when questioned. It is almost perfectly parallel to the 'we need blockchain' argument or 'we need a mobile app'. That isn't to say those are not useful technologies, but the rapid rise, steep decline, then gradual rise is a theme in tech.
- disqard 1y agoJames Mickens named-and-shamed this viewpoint, which he called "Technological Manifest Destiny". Others have observed and pointed out his prescience before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22364699 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22364699
- schlauerfox 1y agoalternately, they're too polite to say that to grow further they need to extract more value from labor and this is the biggest hope of that right now.