I think AI has mostly been about luring investors into pumping up share prices rather than offering something of genuine value to consumers.
Some people are gonna lose a lot of other people's money over it.
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
31 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
77096 readers
3562 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Definitely. Many companies have implemented AI without thinking with 3 brain cells.
Great and useful implementation of AI exists, but it's like 1/100 right now in products.
My old company before they laid me off laid off our entire HR and Comms teams in exchange for ChatGPT Enterprise.
“We can just have an AI chatbot for HR and pay inquiries and ask Dall-e to create icons and other content”.
A friend who still works there told me they’re hiring a bunch of “prompt engineers” to improve the quality of the AI outputs haha
That's an even worse 'use case' than I could imagine.
HR should be one of the most protected fields against AI, because you actually need a human resource.
And "prompt engineer" is so stupid. The "job" is only necessary because the AI doesn't understand what you want to do well enough. The only productive guy you could hire would be a programmer or something, that could actually tinker with the AI.
Yes, I'm getting some serious dot-com bubble vibes from the whole AI thing. But the dot-com boom produced Amazon, and every company is basically going all-in in the hope they are the new Amazon while in the end most will end up like pets.com but it's a risk they're willing to take.
No shit, because we all see that AI is just technospeak for “harvest all your info”.
Not to mention it's usually dog shit out put
I refuse to use Facebook anymore, but my wife and others do. Apparently the search box is now a Meta AI box, and it pisses them every time. They want the original search back.
That's another thing companies don't seem to understand. A lot of them aren't creating new products and services that use ai, but are removing the existing ones, that people use daily and enjoy, and forcing some ai alternative. Of course people are going to be pissed off!
LLMs: using statistics to generate reasonable-sounding wrong answers from bad data.
Often the answers are pretty good. But you never know if you got a good answer or a bad answer.
And the system doesn't know either.
For me this is the major issue. A human is capable of saying "I don't know". LLMs don't seem able to.
Accurate.
No matter what question you ask them, they have an answer. Even when you point out their answer was wrong, they just have a different answer. There's no concept of not knowing the answer, because they don't know anything in the first place.
Market shows that investors are actively turned on by products that use AI
Market shows that the market buys into hype, not value.
As I mentioned in another post, about the same topic:
Slapping the words “artificial intelligence” onto your product makes you look like those shady used cars salesmen: in the best hypothesis it’s misleading, in the worst it’s actually true but poorly done.
For the love of god, defund MBAs.
Fallout was right.
LLM based AI was a fun toy when it first broke. Everyone was curious and wanted to play with it, which made it seem super popular. Now that the novelty has worn off, most people are bored and unimpressed with it. The problem is that the tech bros invested so much money in it and they are unwilling to take the loss. They are trying to force it so that they can say they didn't waste their money.
Take the hint, MBAs.
They don't care. At the moment AI is cheap for them (because some other investor is paying for it). As long as they believe AI reduces their operating costs*, and as long as they're convinced every other company will follow suit, it doesn't matter if consumers like it less. Modern history is a long string of companies making things worse and selling them to us anyway because there's no alternatives. Because every competitor is doing it, too, except the ones that are prohibitively expensive.
[*] Lol, it doesn't do that either
Assuming MBAs can do math might be a mistake. I've worked on an MBA pet project that squandered millions in worker time and opportunity cost to save 30k mrc...