[dmurvihill]

This says it all:

> I haven’t met anyone who doesn’t believe artificial intelligence has the potential to be one of the biggest technological developments of all time, reshaping both daily life and the global economy.

You’re trying to weigh in on this topic and you didn’t even _talk_ to a bear?

[obruchez]

It's difficult to know what people really believe, especially after only a few minutes of discussion, but I would say most people I talk to don't believe AGI is even possible. And they probably think their life won't be changed much by LLMs, AI, etc.

[dmurvihill]

I believe AGI is possible. Also that LLMs are a dead end as far as that goes.

[roenxi]

I haven't heard a good argument for why AGI isn't already here. It has average humans beat and seems generally to be better-than-novice in any given field that requires intelligence. They play Go, they write music, they've read Shakespeare, they are better at empathy and conversation than most. What more are we asking AI to do? And can a normal human do it?

[YetAnotherNick]

> artificial intelligence has the potential to be one of the biggest technological developments of all time, reshaping both daily life and the global economy.

This seems like a factually correct sentence. Emphasis on "potential".

[tim333]

You can be a bear and still think AI will be big one day. It's quite plausible that LLMs will remain limited and we don't find anything better for decades and the stocks crash. But saying AI will never be a big thing is just unrealistic.

[Yizahi]

I think we should split definition somehow, between what LLMs can do today (or next few years) with how big a thing this particular capability can be (a derivative of the capability). And then what some future AI could do and with how big a thing that future capability could be.

I regularly see people who distinguish between current and future capabilities, but then still lump societal impact (how big a thing could be) into one projection.

The key bubble question is - if that future AI is sufficiently far away (for example if there will be a gap, a new "AI winter" for a few decades), then does this current capability justify the capital expenditures, and if not then by how much?

[sandworm101]

One upon a time in SF i was told that human-driven cars would be illegal, or too expensive to insure, by the end of the decade. That was last decade. The modern tech economy is all about bubbles biult and sustained by hype people. Vertical farming. Pot replacing alcohol. Blockchains replacing lawyers. The metaverse replacing everything. Sure, we are in an AI bubble but we aslo ride atop a dozen others.

AI data centers in space? In five years? Really? No fiber connections? Does any sane person actually believe this? No. But if that is what keeps the billions flowing upwards then who am I to judge.

[lynx97]

Not just in SF. "Journalists" love to pick up these enflated futuristic projections and run with 'em, since they sound so cozy and generate clicks. I still remember the "Google Car" craze from the early 2010er years. And if you tell people who read and believe this futuristic nonesense that it is enflated, you get pushback, because, yeah, why should a single person know better then a incentivized journalist...

[TheAceOfHearts]

I'm quite skeptical of the data centers in space claim, but I think a proof of concept can certainly be achieved in five years. I'm less convinced that we'll ever see widescale deployment of data center satellites.

And to be fair, I've read that Google's timelines for this project extend far beyond a 5 year horizon. I think it's a rational research direction for them, since it gets people excited and historically many space-related innovations have been repurposed to benefit other industries. Best case scenario would be that research done in support of this data centers in space project leads to innovations that can be applied towards normal data centers.

[bitwize]

AI is changing the world and has changed the world already.

See, AI is a field... and it's also a buzzword: once a technology passes out of fashion and becomes part of the fabric of computing, it is no longer called AI in the public imagination. GOFAI techniques, like rules engines and propositional-logic inference, were certainly considered AI in the 1970s and 1980s, and are still used, they're just no longer called that.

The statistical methods behind machine learning, transformers, and LLMs are certainly game changers for the field. Whether they will usher in a revolutionary new economy, or simply be accepted as sometimes-useful computation techniques as their limitations and the boundaries of their benefits become more widely known, remains to be seen but I think it will be closer to the latter than the former.

[thenaturalist]

Also equating artificial intelligence with LLMs.

I get that laymen and the media do it, but imo this looks really bad for an investor.

[ACCount37]

What's the alternative? Is there literally any AI tech more promising and disruptive than LLMs? Or should we buy into that "it's not ackhtually AI" meme?

[askl]

> but imo this looks really bad for an investor.

Why? Would you expect an investor to understand what they're investing in?

[lm28469]

"My technosolutionist bubble says it's not a bubble, trust me bro"

[paganel]

> technosolutionist

I'm going to steal this for my arrr rspod conversations.

[thenaturalist]

„Just XYZ more billion, bro, and then we’re gonna have AGI! For real bro, pleaseeee!“

[lawn]

That AI have the potential to be extremely disruptive does not prevent the current speculative boom to be a bubble.

People seem to have forgotten about the dotcom bubble.

[keybored]

I never talk to people who don’t wear suits.

[danybittel]

From the article:

...AI is currently the subject of great enthusiasm. If that enthusiasm doesn’t produce a bubble conforming to the historical pattern, that will be a first.

[re-thc]

> and you didn’t even _talk_ to a bear?

You know how to? What language does it speak?