AI has some legit uses but the hype around it is mostly VC's throwing money at buzzwords while the actual tech is nowhere near the "AGI revolution" they keep promising us lol.
A machine learning suite that spends hour after hour screening trillions of potentially medically useful molecules = kind of interesting.
A subscription to a chatbot that writes buggy code that has to be meticulously combed over before you dare put it into production, and might wind up appearing in Google search results = awful, but it's what's selling for some reason?
The former is important, but attracts little attention from the tech & mainstream press, is not heavily marketed by major corporations to other corporations and the general public, and makes VCs fall asleep. Whereas the latter gets ALL the coverage, marketing, and gives VCs big fat boners. My comment expresses my bewilderment at this state of affairs (hence the "for some reason?"). You want to white-knight machine learning, expert systems and pattern recognition? Call VentureBeat, Andressen-Horowitz, PitchBook, and TechCrunch. And while you're at it, tell them to stop vaporizing genAI slop.
The crap they're promoting it for also showcases the direction they're developing it for which is an utterly depressing, unsustainable and impractical one. It's frustrating to see how much money is invested (and ultimately burned) to actively destroy the economy and create problems rather than fixing some.
This. Everybody wanted it to be AGI right out of the gate. It's just a tool, like Photoshop. It will get better over time but it's not the end all be all.
AI has some legit uses but the hype around it is mostly VC's throwing money at buzzwords while the actual tech is nowhere near the "AGI revolution" they keep promising us lol.
A machine learning suite that spends hour after hour screening trillions of potentially medically useful molecules = kind of interesting.
A subscription to a chatbot that writes buggy code that has to be meticulously combed over before you dare put it into production, and might wind up appearing in Google search results = awful, but it's what's selling for some reason?
The latter isn't even selling, just used because it is free to use or they jammed it into an existing ecosystem like Copilot.
The former isn't "kind of interesting" and there are lots and lots of daily use cases solved by AI that are much much more than "kind of interesting".
What a simple way to try to downplay it by calling it only kind of interesting.
The former is important, but attracts little attention from the tech & mainstream press, is not heavily marketed by major corporations to other corporations and the general public, and makes VCs fall asleep. Whereas the latter gets ALL the coverage, marketing, and gives VCs big fat boners. My comment expresses my bewilderment at this state of affairs (hence the "for some reason?"). You want to white-knight machine learning, expert systems and pattern recognition? Call VentureBeat, Andressen-Horowitz, PitchBook, and TechCrunch. And while you're at it, tell them to stop vaporizing genAI slop.
Sure, I'm just hoping smart people can see through the bullshit and call it out instead of treating all "AI" the same.
How does this differ from most other things VCs throw money at?
cough cough crypto cough
The crap they're promoting it for also showcases the direction they're developing it for which is an utterly depressing, unsustainable and impractical one. It's frustrating to see how much money is invested (and ultimately burned) to actively destroy the economy and create problems rather than fixing some.
This. Everybody wanted it to be AGI right out of the gate. It's just a tool, like Photoshop. It will get better over time but it's not the end all be all.