Comment by light_triad
1 year ago
If you've been in SV long enough, you've seen multiple hype cycles. AI is the latest one. It doesn't mean AI is a con, there's just a tendency to exaggerate and make hyperbolic claims to sell.
AI is primarily used to write text and code. Actually integrating it into workflows across markets will take time.
A great article that is neither overly pessimistic or optimistic is Benedict Evan's The AI Summer [1]. He argues that there's a lot of excitement with big corporates but their actual adoption is low so far.
"an LLM by itself is not a product - it’s a technology that can enable a tool or a feature, and it needs to be unbundled or rebundled into new framings, UX and tools to be become useful. That takes even more time"
[1] https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2024/7/9/the-ai-summ...
In the securities industry, "hype" - i.e. making claims which can not be fulfilled - is known as "fraud" and it lands people in jail. And, even with a ton of regulation in the securities industry, we still get some kind of financial crisis every decade or so. So tech people: why not think ahead and stop making false claims before you (1) cause the next crisis and (2) get slapped with heavy regulations? Stop hyping and think.
>It doesn't mean AI is a con, there's just a tendency to exaggerate and make hyperbolic claims to sell.
"Con", in this context, is short for confidence. A con-man is a confidence man.
"a swindler who exploits the confidence of his victim"
It's a con.
You've got to distinguish the tech from the companies and salesmen. Like in the dot com bubble the internet was real and important but a lot of the companies were cons.
Likewise here AI is real and important but a lot of the companies are cons.
Sure you'll find folks that perhaps literally believe that AI is bigger than fire and the wheel, or whatever. Or business leaders that more cynically try to ride the hype wave with their own customers.
I think the key here is actual usage and adoption. If early adopters (marketers and coders) keep using the new tools for real work over the long term then it's a positive signal.
> you've seen multiple hype cycles. AI is the latest one. It doesn't mean AI is a con, there's just a tendency to exaggerate and make hyperbolic claims to sell.
The term "AI Winter" dates back from the 80s, and that should tell us something.
At every cycle, we have insane hype (remember when "expert systems" would replace doctors?), a lot of investment. Hype fails to catch up to reality, investors get spooked. Nobody talks about that flavor of "AI" for a few years, even though we usually get new and useful tools.
Not remembering when expert systems were the thing myself I looked it up:
>Expert systems were formally introduced around 1965
and hyped in the 1970s, launched in the 1980s and found to be a bit rubbish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_system
The author betrays himself early with this line:
> a cynical bubble inflated by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman built to sell into an economy run by people that have no concept of labor other than their desperation to exploit or replace it.
He brings up the concept of labor and applies a moral judgement about "replacing" and "exploiting" labor.
And then he throws the kitchen sink at the technology. People use it sure, but it's because journalists write about it. How it's expensive to train. Throw a bunch of explicits and call it a hot take.
It's the equivalent of a vegan trying to convince you that eating meat is morally wrong, and will give you cancer, and make you fat, and give you ED, and ...
This doesn't work primarily due to the fact that most people reading this got real value from an LLM. And I'm sure the author did as well. Claiming otherwise is dishonest. So what is his problem?
How are you able to make the inference that "most people reading this got real value from an LLM. And I'm sure the author did as well." How are you so sure of that?
Speaking for myself, I've never gotten any real value from an LLM and their disappearance would not affect me in the slightest.
It sounds more like you were upset about his assertion because YOU derive value from an LLM, and are projecting that as some sort of dishonesty on the author's part.
Also, it was his intention to throw "the kitchen sink at the technology" as a means of showing its lack of value. In the same way a vegan would do exactly as you mention to show all the arguments AGAINST eating meat. It is meant to strengthen the intended argument through overwhelming evidence.
Chatgpt was the 6th (and climbing) most visited site in the world in January. Cursor is the fastest growing Saas of all time.
So yeah, most people get real value from LLMs. It's pretty plain to see, for anyone actually interested in seeing it.
6 replies →
Very few people get real value from an LLM. They're useful for minor grammatical checks, and idiot-level summaries. Maybe for entry-level coding. Outside of that, they're basically just gimmicks. You can't trust the output at all; literally everything an LLM outputs must be verified before it can be used for anything important, so you end up doing all of the work you thought you would have avoided by using an LLM.
> literally everything an LLM outputs must be verified
Until you prove P=NP I’ll take that as a win
Honestly can not understand this take. I put literally everything I write for work into an LLM. 80% of the time it has good suggestions to improve it. It is by far the best grammar checker I have found. Obviously dont ask for facts but it is incredible with language. Claude is far more useful to me than google search ever was.
> So what is his problem?
My guess: He's just posting a hot-take to farm for engagement.
I'm not saying he's wrong about everything. I'm just pointing out that he has a small incentive to be engaging.
I agree. This is a helpful take. The book Prediction Machines [1] is a longer version, and longer view explanation, of what Ben Evan's shares in the post you link to.
[1] https://www.predictionmachines.ai/