3 ms·

> No one knows what AI will look like 6 months No, but we know what it’s looked like over the past 6 months. We also have two years of Altman preening about im

> No one knows what AI will look like 6 months No, but we know what it’s looked like over the past 6 months. We also have two years of Altman preening about imminent, massive job losses. Per his own timelines, those haven’t manifested. Predicting indeterminate catastrophe isn’t a prediction, it’s a scam.

torginus 5mo ago
And its a quite insane thing to push, even if true - AI spend has outgrown wages (even in software) to such a degree, that basically if AI allowed companies to fire every human employee, they wouldn't be saving that much.
- fragmede 5mo ago
  "Basically" is doing a lot of work there. What are the profit margins at FooCorp, and how much time and money is spent on messy human drama? If you could replace every human employee with AI, then you could fire the entire HR department and replace it with one AI "HR" that just spins up new AI employees like we do EC2 instances today. Since there are no more messy human resources to manage, anyway. Shutting down the entire department should boost profits by quite a bit!
- fc417fc802 5mo ago
  Are you perhaps confounding inference purchased by clients with R&D and capex invested by frontier providers?
fc417fc802 5mo ago
Agreed but the converse is also true. Predicting that everything will be sunshine and rainbows merely because the sky hasn't fallen yet doesn't pass the sniff test. > we know what it’s looked like over the past 6 months. Oddly I seem to interpret that in the opposite manner that you do. The output became noticeably more cohesive sometime around the new year although it certainly still has plenty of shortcomings.
- JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
  > Predicting that everything will be sunshine and rainbows merely because the sky hasn't fallen yet doesn't pass the sniff test I’m not predicting it will be fine. I’m saying we have enough evidence to cast the opposite prediction, made on specific timescales in the past, as BS.
  - zoogeny 5mo ago
    I'm not following your logic here. Are you basing your predictions on the predictions of CEOs? If I understand you correctly you are saying, CEOs predicted X and they were wrong. Now CEOs are predicting Y, and since they were wrong about X you predict they are also wrong about Y. But Y's success seems independent of other people's ability to predict X?

torginus 5mo ago

And its a quite insane thing to push, even if true - AI spend has outgrown wages (even in software) to such a degree, that basically if AI allowed companies to fire every human employee, they wouldn't be saving that much.

fragmede 5mo ago
"Basically" is doing a lot of work there. What are the profit margins at FooCorp, and how much time and money is spent on messy human drama? If you could replace every human employee with AI, then you could fire the entire HR department and replace it with one AI "HR" that just spins up new AI employees like we do EC2 instances today. Since there are no more messy human resources to manage, anyway. Shutting down the entire department should boost profits by quite a bit!
fc417fc802 5mo ago
Are you perhaps confounding inference purchased by clients with R&D and capex invested by frontier providers?

fc417fc802 5mo ago

Agreed but the converse is also true. Predicting that everything will be sunshine and rainbows merely because the sky hasn't fallen yet doesn't pass the sniff test. > we know what it’s looked like over the past 6 months. Oddly I seem to interpret that in the opposite manner that you do. The output became noticeably more cohesive sometime around the new year although it certainly still has plenty of shortcomings.

JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
> Predicting that everything will be sunshine and rainbows merely because the sky hasn't fallen yet doesn't pass the sniff test I’m not predicting it will be fine. I’m saying we have enough evidence to cast the opposite prediction, made on specific timescales in the past, as BS.
- zoogeny 5mo ago
  I'm not following your logic here. Are you basing your predictions on the predictions of CEOs? If I understand you correctly you are saying, CEOs predicted X and they were wrong. Now CEOs are predicting Y, and since they were wrong about X you predict they are also wrong about Y. But Y's success seems independent of other people's ability to predict X?