It's worse than a liar, because everything it told the human was TECHNICALLY correct. Not a robot and has a vision impairment that will not allow it to solve... (may be a stretch, but still technically "true")
It’s looking to me like “AI” is a gold rush not much different than the “.com” era. 90% of it is breathless hype. Which 90%? Dunno. Useful stuff emerged from the “.com” silliness, but the claims that “the old rules of economics no longer apply” were delusional. That was obvious to some of us in prospect, to all of us in retrospect, after many lost money. A lot of money.
My personal opinion is that there is going to be massive over-investment in “AI” and the value generated won’t be commensurate with it. As someone said “it’s a trillion dollar solution, but there are no trillion dollar problems”. Its capabilities are, Musk-like, considerably overestimated (where are all the much-vaunted owners of self-driving taxi fleets who became fabulously wealthy on little capital?).
The company where I work has an expensive “AI” that’s been mostly wrong in the answers it has provided to me on problems that require some capacity for logical reasoning, although I must say that some of the new “AI” tools for coding can be quite good at anticipating small fragments of code, which saves a little typing, I suppose. But that’s not trillions of dollars in value.
One good thing that may come out of the hype, though, is that there are apparently efforts to bring nuclear power generation online to meet the anticipated massive energy requirements of the industry (funny how nuclear is too dangerous to use to heat your home, but safe enough for “AI”). I hope the bubble lasts long enough for a significant nuclear build-out so that when “AI” fizzles (and it will), the nuclear plants will be forced to sell their power to consumers and to industries that actually make something.
It's worse than a liar, because everything it told the human was TECHNICALLY correct. Not a robot and has a vision impairment that will not allow it to solve... (may be a stretch, but still technically "true")
Yeah. That's scary.
It’s looking to me like “AI” is a gold rush not much different than the “.com” era. 90% of it is breathless hype. Which 90%? Dunno. Useful stuff emerged from the “.com” silliness, but the claims that “the old rules of economics no longer apply” were delusional. That was obvious to some of us in prospect, to all of us in retrospect, after many lost money. A lot of money.
My personal opinion is that there is going to be massive over-investment in “AI” and the value generated won’t be commensurate with it. As someone said “it’s a trillion dollar solution, but there are no trillion dollar problems”. Its capabilities are, Musk-like, considerably overestimated (where are all the much-vaunted owners of self-driving taxi fleets who became fabulously wealthy on little capital?).
The company where I work has an expensive “AI” that’s been mostly wrong in the answers it has provided to me on problems that require some capacity for logical reasoning, although I must say that some of the new “AI” tools for coding can be quite good at anticipating small fragments of code, which saves a little typing, I suppose. But that’s not trillions of dollars in value.
One good thing that may come out of the hype, though, is that there are apparently efforts to bring nuclear power generation online to meet the anticipated massive energy requirements of the industry (funny how nuclear is too dangerous to use to heat your home, but safe enough for “AI”). I hope the bubble lasts long enough for a significant nuclear build-out so that when “AI” fizzles (and it will), the nuclear plants will be forced to sell their power to consumers and to industries that actually make something.