I haven’t seen any productivity or growth from AI.
All I see is increased liabilities and failures.
I know I’m going to catch flak for it, but I definitely see use cases where LLMs (AI hasn’t been invented yet) do increase productivity. All my devs use them for their daily work and haven’t once questioned that it’s useful. However, they know when to use LLMs and when not too. That is definitely not the case for the general populace and is further accentuated by big tech unnecessarily cramming that stuff in everything. That’s what’s creating an ecological and societal issue that’s rightfully driving the negative sentiments
Apparently you don’t follow the news about software vulnerabilities. Since LLMs started replacing coders the number has skyrocketed. I’ve also seen more consumers abstaining from online platforms than ever because they know, they don’t think they know, that sloppers such as yourself will not hesitate to sell off their face and identity to Peter Theil the billionnaire nazi.
AI doesn’t have a use case aside from disinformation, it’s a net negative on society by a lot.
There are responsible and irresponsible ways to use LLMs to code. Of course, the irresponsible ways are also the cheapest. Your problem is with short sighted profit-maximizing capitalism, not LLMs.
An LLM is basically a glorified autocomplete. Ideal for writing standard code blocks and automating repetitive tasks. It’s a bit like getting a trainee to bash out stuff that doesn’t require much thought. Using it to write your entire codebase and calling it “vibe coding” is like getting a trainee to write your entire codebase.
A trainee at least has morals. An LLM could result in human deaths or millions in property losses and be like: “You’re absolutely right. I completely misread the situation. Here’s why:”
Then you have either literally not even tried to look, or are objectively ignoring reality in favor of personal biases and possibly xenophobia.
There’s plenty of issues, water problems, power problems, ethical concerns, etc.
But claiming there’s been no productivity, growth or progress caused by LLM technology is objectively wrong.
It’s like claiming that nuclear research brought zero benefits just because you disagree with nukes.
It’s objectively on every level, retarded as fuck.
and possibly xenophobia
Bruh what
I agree with your point but “xenophobia”? Come on man, what are you smoking? Also loads of people just don’t have a day-to-day use case for LLM’s, doesn’t make them stupid/retarded for never seeing any upside and only see the downsides. Explaining what you use it for and its pros is a much better argument
Wdym abscent? The EU was among the first to regulate AI
And the EU has its own domestic AI, including Mistral which is one of the big ones. Not an AI fan myself but this is clearly nonsense
And even if they didn’t AI is rapidly becoming a generic commodity. Just build a datacenter and plug in an off-the-shelf LLM. There’s nothing to really catch up on other than infrastructure, which will be radically cheaper when the bubble pops. There is no crucial or indispensible IP for countries or even companies to own.
Given the current inflated costs (and the energy crisis), the best thing to do is wait until this shakes out and build in the future with a clearer understanding of the destination.
infrastructure, which will be radically cheaper when the bubble pops
I wouldn’t count on that unless the popping sound is nuclear. Demand for AI is not going anywhere, even when companies fail and investors lose out.
What will improve prices for everyone is better algorithms and more efficient chips for them, helping supply to catch up with demand.
We must disagree on what a bubble is or whether AI is a bubble, because what you’re saying seem nonsensical to me.
Demand for AI will slowly grow, but the insane prices for components will come down because what is driving those prices is speculation about future growth, not actual current, near- or even medium-term demmand.
Another thing to consider is that AI infrastructure is barely infrastructure at all–you have to buy new GPUs every 5-or-so years, at a tremendous cost. If you build a data center, they, in a sane world, those GPUS need to pay for themselves before the next batch of GPUs comes in.
There really is no reason to go nuts building temporary infrastructure when the price is at its peak. Please, I’m begging you, start making sense.
Current demand for AI seems anything but slow… do you think this hardware is being hoarded by large buyers, instead of being put to commercial use ASAP?
Whether it takes 3 months or 5 years to pay for itself is a valid Q though, and there is an element of risk that these companies take on with large hardware purchases in a rapidly evolving industry. Ultimately profits will need to cover any debts they take on, and there’s only so much private investment money to go around… I expect to see more consolidation as this plays out.
Owning datacenters with secure energy sources seems like a safe bet though, and is probably the bigger initial investment.
Circular financing from NVIDIA is selling more cards than can be installed. The business press is absolutely supine on this, but it’s likely there are qute a few purchased GPUs sitting in warehouses.
https://infrathesis.substack.com/p/gpu-bought-cant-build-data-center-bottleneck
Edit: “What do you mean people aren’t finding a lot of gold? Don´t you see how many pans have been sold?!”
We should really think about the (our) AI Corpus first: https://aicorpus.eu/
Europe does not invest much into technology; Europeans in general don’t like technology. Let the Europeans be good humanist progressives, and leave them alone. They are not in a rat race for dominance.
Not dominace but values: https://aicorpus.eu/
Or just skip this shit. We don’t need “AI”
You know that AI/ML is not only LLMs, right?
Which is likely why they put AI in quotes.
Cesspool guardian
Not true
Whenever I ask that crap about something, I get very often wrong answer. When you tell it that it is wrong, it says Oh yeah, that is like that.
Shun it and have a population of people who can solve their own problems. Use it and gain a population that give of even basic decision making skills.
Europe being “absent” from the AI safety debate may be the feature, not the bug. While Silicon Valley debates whether its own products could end humanity, Europe is asking the less cinematic question: why should our infrastructure, data and economy depend on a handful of US firms? Safety without sovereignty is just dependency with better paperwork.
The title doesn’t make much sense so I haven’t read the article. No, experimenting with LLMs/“AI” doesn’t automatically make you “dependent on US/China tools”. The same way as drawing cats doesn’t make you a Egypt colony.
Ya, I had the same reaction. Shunning it would be likelier to lead to dependence on a foreign solution as well.
Or make your own
Besides hardware manufacturers (nvidia et al) not a single company is growing because of AI.
Shun the technology and
lose out on growthfeel the JOMO (Joy of Missing Out).There, fixed it for you.
