3 ms·
I'm old enough to have heard this before, once or thrice. It's always different this time. More seriously: there are decent arguments that say that LLMs have
by quesera 1y ago
I'm old enough to have heard this before, once or thrice.
It's always different this time.
More seriously: there are decent arguments that say that LLMs have an upper bound of usefulness and that we're not necessarily closer to transcending that with a different AI technology than we were 10 or 30 years ago.
The LLMs we have, even if they are approaching an upper bound, are a big deal. They're very interesting and have lots of applications. These applications might be net-negative or net-positive, it will probably vary by circumstance. But they might not become what you're extrapolating them into.
- subjectivationx 1y agoI love chatGPT5 and Claude but they aren't as big of a deal as going from no internet to having the internet. That I think is the entire mistake of this bubble. We confused what we do have with some kind of science fiction fantasy and then have worked backwards from the science fiction fantasy as if it is inevitable. If anything, the lack of use cases is what is most interesting with LLMs. Then again, "AI" can do anything. Probabilistic language models? Kind of limited.