I think it will massively correct, like the dotcom bubble for websites. LLMs are a useful utility, but not something that’s going to make economics irrelevant (like people thought about the internet).
Why? LLMs are tools, text models, not AGI magic lamps, and a couple of con artists are trying to convince the world otherwise. That’s an oversimplification, but the jist of it.
And I’m no LLM skeptic. I’ve been playing with ML as a hobby for a decade, with local LLMs before ChatGPT was even available, but the market attitude towards all this is absolutely bonkers. It’s worse than crypto.
AI will definitely stay around, but the current AI hype is a market bubbles waiting to pop, similar to how the dot com bubble burst and we still have the internet.
You are not interested in the actual answer, troll. You act in bad faith and only seek to suck energy and goodwill from decent people that might think you genuinely want to understand something.
The truth is you either do know and you’re playing dumb, or you lack the basic capacity/attention span/empathy to understand and you’re just blindly defending a “team” you think you belong to. Wake up, you wannabe cybertruck driver… you’re not getting an invite to the yacht, the bunker or the child molestation island.
Well if anyone knows anything, it’s you, right? I mean, you don’t have to explain anything either! Wow, imagine a world where people could actually do that! Thanks for the conversation though. The world is now better off.
By the way, you have a problem: you aren’t allowing for a real question. That fits into something we’ve been hearing about lately, but past attempts to silence me have also failed. Releasing your built-up anger against random me is a waste of your time.
Megopie gave you a real answer with details hours ago, but you haven’t meaningfully replied to it. Are you sure you’re actually looking for an answer? Or are you looking to feel like you’re correct and that these people don’t know what they’re talking about?
from the investment perspective, they’ve been losing a lot of money, and they still don’t have a way to make it back
from the technical perspective, llms probably already reached their peak, and they are still far from reliable in many use cases
also a disaster for the environment and the culture, the growing sentiment is: fuck all this
If AI uses fossil fuels, it’s a disaster for the environment, but it doesn’t have to use fossil fuels. They’ve been spending more then revenue, but revenue is growing, this is normal for new techs. Reliability depends on expectations. My point here is that from what I see, AI will keep growing, but hopefully slowly enough so people can keep up. I mean, I wouldn’t rely on expecting a crash.
If AI uses fossil fuels, it’s a disaster for the environment, but it doesn’t have to use fossil fuels.
and yet they do
They’ve been spending more then revenue, but revenue is growing, this is normal for new techs.
i’d say it has been normalised, but in the famous cases of amazon and uber, they needed to destroy a “traditional” industry first (aka disrupt), but for chatbots, they need to invent the market first
Reliability depends on expectations.
also, usage depends on reliability. what’s the point of using a tool that’s wrong 10% of the times? you have to check every answer. it doesn’t matter as much in a casual environment, but that’s not a 10% of the gdp kind of industry
My point here is that from what I see, AI will keep growing,
as long as some people are willing to invest billions to keep the bubble growing, but when someone big enough pulls out, it will collapse
but hopefully slowly enough so people can keep up.
holy condescension batman
i’m sorry, i didn’t realise i’m talking to a prompt engineer
I mean, I wouldn’t rely on expecting a crash.
well i wouldn’t rely on not expecting one
also, piss off, nobody wants a crash, we will pay for it, after they bail their idiot friends out
If you look at the SpaceX valuation documents, specifically, they’re relying on orbital data centers, Dyson spheres, and other scifi bullshit to account for a multi-trillion dollar market cap.
Add in that the terms of the IPO afford Musk and his insider friends to dump shares as early as 70 days after launch day.
It isn’t that the companies are bad on their face nearly so much as they’re rigged to implode from within.
Alphaville, at the Financial Times, has been covering these IPOs extensively. Musk’s is arguably the worst, but OpenAI is running a tight second. And Claude is still largely a cash negative endeavor.
I never clicked on a link without any title or explanation. Not starting with that one. That’s like using AI to talking to us instead of bothering yourself.
I’m very curious as to why you and others think AI will “tank”.
I think it will massively correct, like the dotcom bubble for websites. LLMs are a useful utility, but not something that’s going to make economics irrelevant (like people thought about the internet).
Why? LLMs are tools, text models, not AGI magic lamps, and a couple of con artists are trying to convince the world otherwise. That’s an oversimplification, but the jist of it.
And I’m no LLM skeptic. I’ve been playing with ML as a hobby for a decade, with local LLMs before ChatGPT was even available, but the market attitude towards all this is absolutely bonkers. It’s worse than crypto.
I appreciate your mature and common sense reply. This place is nuts! 🤪 😅
AI will definitely stay around, but the current AI hype is a market bubbles waiting to pop, similar to how the dot com bubble burst and we still have the internet.
Many people here say “the AI bubble will pop”, but they never explain why they think so. That’s my question.
Check out this guy’s blog (Ed Zitron)
You are not interested in the actual answer, troll. You act in bad faith and only seek to suck energy and goodwill from decent people that might think you genuinely want to understand something.
The truth is you either do know and you’re playing dumb, or you lack the basic capacity/attention span/empathy to understand and you’re just blindly defending a “team” you think you belong to. Wake up, you wannabe cybertruck driver… you’re not getting an invite to the yacht, the bunker or the child molestation island.
Well if anyone knows anything, it’s you, right? I mean, you don’t have to explain anything either! Wow, imagine a world where people could actually do that! Thanks for the conversation though. The world is now better off.
By the way, you have a problem: you aren’t allowing for a real question. That fits into something we’ve been hearing about lately, but past attempts to silence me have also failed. Releasing your built-up anger against random me is a waste of your time.
Megopie gave you a real answer with details hours ago, but you haven’t meaningfully replied to it. Are you sure you’re actually looking for an answer? Or are you looking to feel like you’re correct and that these people don’t know what they’re talking about?
You go around asking people to reply to other people? I guess you got entertained so I’ll take it as a compliment.
Your comment would look like this as a person.
from the investment perspective, they’ve been losing a lot of money, and they still don’t have a way to make it back
from the technical perspective, llms probably already reached their peak, and they are still far from reliable in many use cases
also a disaster for the environment and the culture, the growing sentiment is: fuck all this
If AI uses fossil fuels, it’s a disaster for the environment, but it doesn’t have to use fossil fuels. They’ve been spending more then revenue, but revenue is growing, this is normal for new techs. Reliability depends on expectations. My point here is that from what I see, AI will keep growing, but hopefully slowly enough so people can keep up. I mean, I wouldn’t rely on expecting a crash.
and yet they do
i’d say it has been normalised, but in the famous cases of amazon and uber, they needed to destroy a “traditional” industry first (aka disrupt), but for chatbots, they need to invent the market first
also, usage depends on reliability. what’s the point of using a tool that’s wrong 10% of the times? you have to check every answer. it doesn’t matter as much in a casual environment, but that’s not a 10% of the gdp kind of industry
as long as some people are willing to invest billions to keep the bubble growing, but when someone big enough pulls out, it will collapse
holy condescension batman
i’m sorry, i didn’t realise i’m talking to a prompt engineer
well i wouldn’t rely on not expecting one
also, piss off, nobody wants a crash, we will pay for it, after they bail their idiot friends out
If you look at the SpaceX valuation documents, specifically, they’re relying on orbital data centers, Dyson spheres, and other scifi bullshit to account for a multi-trillion dollar market cap.
Add in that the terms of the IPO afford Musk and his insider friends to dump shares as early as 70 days after launch day.
It isn’t that the companies are bad on their face nearly so much as they’re rigged to implode from within.
Alphaville, at the Financial Times, has been covering these IPOs extensively. Musk’s is arguably the worst, but OpenAI is running a tight second. And Claude is still largely a cash negative endeavor.
They aren’t able to justify their prices.
Found elon.
Where? So what?
Historical precedent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsE0BwQ3l8U&t=1492s
I never clicked on a link without any title or explanation. Not starting with that one. That’s like using AI to talking to us instead of bothering yourself.
breh