30 ms·
Because the hype cycle on the original AI wave was fading so folks needed something new to buzz about to keep the hype momentum going. Seriously, that’s the rea
by JCM9 1y ago
Because the hype cycle on the original AI wave was fading so folks needed something new to buzz about to keep the hype momentum going. Seriously, that’s the reason.
- berkes 1y agoDo you have any reasoning or anything else to back this up? Edit: honest question, not a diss or a dismissal. It's an interesting take, one that I believe could be true, but it sounds more like an opinion than a thesis or even fact.
- JCM9 1y agoFolks aren’t seeing measurable returns on AI. Lots written about this. When the bean counters show up, the easiest way to get out of jail is to say “Oh X? Yeah that was last year, don’t worry about it… we’re now focused on Y which is where the impact will come from.” Every hype cycle goes through some variation of this evolution. As much as folks try to say AI is different it’s following the same very predictable hype cycle curve.
- Msurrow 1y agoThe Gartner Hype Cycle [1]. I wonder were AI should be put on the graph, here in the 2025 fall. Just past the peak? Or are we not there yet. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle
- eschaton 1y agoWhy do they need reasoning to back it up when the LLMs being promoted don’t actually do any reasoning?
- Havoc 1y agoSame with “context engineering”