4 ms·

Yep, and the same with the internet. During the 1990s and 2000s, people kept wondering why the internet wasn't showing up in productivity numbers. Many asked i

Yep, and the same with the internet. During the 1990s and 2000s, people kept wondering why the internet wasn't showing up in productivity numbers. Many asked if the internet was therefore just a fad or bubble. Same as some now do with AI. It takes time for technology to show measurable impact in enormous economies. No reason why AI will be any different.

sillyfluke 7mo ago
It didn't take mobile apps with the launch of the iPhone 20 years to add to the economy though, did it?
- m4rtink 7mo ago
  The iPhone was not the first mobile device or even the first smartphone. Not to mention it did not support mobile applications as we know them today.
  - sillyfluke 7mo ago
    That seems a tad reductionist. Why not just say the iPhone was completely inconsequential because afterall it's simply another "computer". Why not go even back further and start the timer at the first physical implementation of a Turing machine? The iPhone killer UX + App store release can be directly traced to the growth in tech in the subsequent years its release.
    - m4rtink 7mo ago
      I think it would have happened regardless - late Symbian from Nokia was pretty close and Maemo was already a thing with N900 not that far off in the future, not to mention Android. We might have been possibly better of actually, with the Apple walled garden abominations and user device lockdowns not being dragged into the mainstream.
      - eichin 7mo ago
        As someone who worked for Nokia around the iPhone launch (on map search, not phones directly) - I also wanted to believe this at the time. But in retrospect, it feels like what actually mattered was that capacitive multi-touch screens were the only non-garbage interface, and only Apple bought FingerWorks... Not clear that this is a helpful interpretation, other than "we're in the primordial ooze stage and the thing that matters will be something none of the current players have", but that's hard to take to the bank :-)
recursive 7mo ago
Also no particular reason to group it in with those two. There are plenty of things that never showed up at all. It's just not a signal It's kind of like "My kid is failing math, but he's just bored. Einstein failed a lot too you know". Regardless of whether Einstein actually failed anything, there are a lot more non-Einsteins that have failed.
rainsford 7mo ago
Sure, but you have to consider Carl Sagan's point, "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Some truly useful technologies start out slow and the question is asked if they are fads or bubbles even though they end up having huge impact. But plenty of things that at first appeared to be fads or bubbles truly were fads or bubbles. Personally I think AI is unlikely to go the way of NFTs and it shows actual promise. What I'm much less convinced of is that it will prove valuable in a way that's even remotely within the same order of magnitude as the investments being pumped into it. The Internet didn't begin as a massive black hole sucking all the light out of the room for anything else before it really started showing commensurate ROI.
- arisAlexis 7mo ago
  Even that you mentioned NFTs in comparison hurts my mind
  - kibwen 7mo ago
    I mean, it's an apt comparison, given that the Venn diagram between the pro-NFT hucksters and the pro-AI crowd is a circle. When you listen to people who were so publicly and embarrassingly wrong about the future try to sell you on their next hustle, skepticism is the correct posture.
    - arisAlexis 7mo ago
      We can't agree on anything if you think AI is a hustle. You are in a world of surprise
- jeltz 7mo ago
  Columbus was not a genius. He was an idiot who believed the earth was smaller than the scientists of his day, and the scientists were right. Columbus became successful through pure luck, genocide and cruelty. Most idiots like Columbus died in obscurity.

sillyfluke 7mo ago

It didn't take mobile apps with the launch of the iPhone 20 years to add to the economy though, did it?

m4rtink 7mo ago
The iPhone was not the first mobile device or even the first smartphone. Not to mention it did not support mobile applications as we know them today.
- sillyfluke 7mo ago
  That seems a tad reductionist. Why not just say the iPhone was completely inconsequential because afterall it's simply another "computer". Why not go even back further and start the timer at the first physical implementation of a Turing machine? The iPhone killer UX + App store release can be directly traced to the growth in tech in the subsequent years its release.
  - m4rtink 7mo ago
    I think it would have happened regardless - late Symbian from Nokia was pretty close and Maemo was already a thing with N900 not that far off in the future, not to mention Android. We might have been possibly better of actually, with the Apple walled garden abominations and user device lockdowns not being dragged into the mainstream.
    - eichin 7mo ago
      As someone who worked for Nokia around the iPhone launch (on map search, not phones directly) - I also wanted to believe this at the time. But in retrospect, it feels like what actually mattered was that capacitive multi-touch screens were the only non-garbage interface, and only Apple bought FingerWorks... Not clear that this is a helpful interpretation, other than "we're in the primordial ooze stage and the thing that matters will be something none of the current players have", but that's hard to take to the bank :-)

recursive 7mo ago

Also no particular reason to group it in with those two. There are plenty of things that never showed up at all. It's just not a signal It's kind of like "My kid is failing math, but he's just bored. Einstein failed a lot too you know". Regardless of whether Einstein actually failed anything, there are a lot more non-Einsteins that have failed.

rainsford 7mo ago

Sure, but you have to consider Carl Sagan's point, "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Some truly useful technologies start out slow and the question is asked if they are fads or bubbles even though they end up having huge impact. But plenty of things that at first appeared to be fads or bubbles truly were fads or bubbles. Personally I think AI is unlikely to go the way of NFTs and it shows actual promise. What I'm much less convinced of is that it will prove valuable in a way that's even remotely within the same order of magnitude as the investments being pumped into it. The Internet didn't begin as a massive black hole sucking all the light out of the room for anything else before it really started showing commensurate ROI.

arisAlexis 7mo ago
Even that you mentioned NFTs in comparison hurts my mind
- kibwen 7mo ago
  I mean, it's an apt comparison, given that the Venn diagram between the pro-NFT hucksters and the pro-AI crowd is a circle. When you listen to people who were so publicly and embarrassingly wrong about the future try to sell you on their next hustle, skepticism is the correct posture.
  - arisAlexis 7mo ago
    We can't agree on anything if you think AI is a hustle. You are in a world of surprise
jeltz 7mo ago
Columbus was not a genius. He was an idiot who believed the earth was smaller than the scientists of his day, and the scientists were right. Columbus became successful through pure luck, genocide and cruelty. Most idiots like Columbus died in obscurity.