301
Microsoft and Alphabet results show Wall Street only cares about AI
(www.marketwatch.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
301 points (96.6% liked)
Technology
59064 readers
4282 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- 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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I do think there's some use for AI in its current form (especially AI art as a tool for developing other works, like movies and video games), but I find it bizarre just how much investors value the current form of AI.
As cool as I find AI art, I'm not yet sure about it's commercial viability, given the serious legal issues it's facing. So why do investors, who are supposed to care about commercial viability, value it so much?
And for generative text, I have an even more negative stance. My understanding is that the cost to train and run those AIs is ludicrous. Sure, some companies will use it to make blog spam articles or replace their basic support staff with it, but is that really gonna make it profitable?
And I emphasized "current form" because the current AI is basically just predictive text. It's severely limited and this is extremely evident if you try to ask even basic math problems. It's not capable of actual intelligence, which is what has me very skeptical of it on the long term. Maybe these companies will come up with a new, better form of AI. Or maybe they won't. But it doesn't seem like "just increase the size of the model" is sustainable nor will frankly get closer to strong(ish?) AI.
I haven't used this, but think about all narrators losing their jobs because so can do it with the click of a button. https://customers.microsoft.com/en-AU/story/1646266241611394912-project-gutenberg-nonprofit-azure-synapse-analytics-azure-ai-services
That's a lot of people not on the payroll anymore. No health insurance costs, no vacations. Just using the software.
Think of a lot of analytics jobs that ai can replace. You ever spend a day or two making a spreadsheet do whatever you need it to? That's probably a lot of people's jobs. AI can make those people more efficient (as long as a human checks it later), so companies can fire most of the team. That's a lot more people off the payroll.
And there are companies working on general ai. That will replace.... So many jobs.
This is a program I use daily at work. Costs me like $250/year on my budget - literally less than. one hotel stay for a work trip. I spent more on food last trip than this will cost my company.
https://www.synthesia.io/
It's a big step away from "predictive text." This is the AI revolution in action. There are dozens of products you don't know about shaking up professions you barely ever think about.
I don't have to build a Content Gen team because of this software, probably ever.
My buddy, meanwhile, is on a team building an "AI" for a major property insurance company to help them sift data. Small changes, incrementally, permeating through the system. That's strong adoption and worth investment.
To replace human labor. That what it is about.
Bandwagoning doesn't require thinking or logic. It's fomo capitalism
There's also no association between the product and it's value. It's perceived value only.