3 ms·
I would respect Ed (and Gary Marcus) more if they would concede the occasional point. But everything AI is always a hyperbolic and unqualified disaster. I suppo
by npilk 6mo ago
I would respect Ed (and Gary Marcus) more if they would concede the occasional point. But everything AI is always a hyperbolic and unqualified disaster. I suppose that's what the audience wants.
"every bit of AI demand ... that exists only exists due to subsidies"
Really? NOBODY would pay whatever the fully-loaded cost is? What about people running local models on their own GPUs? Are they being subsidized too?
- anonymous_user9 6mo ago> Are they being subsidized too? Yes, because they didn't pay the cost to train those models in the first place.
- npilk 6mo agoTrue, good point. I still think the piece goes too far with its claims.
- therobots927 6mo agoYour loss. Dude is on the cutting edge and 90% of Silicon Valley is in a cult.
- npilk 6mo agoI like to read Ed (and Gary) as a counterbalance to the AI hype that is pervasive. But Ed reads more and more like he has been personally wronged by the AI companies and is on a righteous crusade to destroy them. He has plenty of valid criticisms, but he comes across like he has his head in the sand when he can't seem to acknowledge any potential upside at all related to AI. It's starting to feel like he's just interpreting news and events to fit his worldview, which isn't that valuable as a reader (unless I want that worldview affirmed for me).