If AI has a bright future, why does AI think it doesn't? (opens in new tab)

(claude.ai)

15 pointsJCW200121d ago21 comments

21 comments

JCW2001OP21d ago

Those who think Gary Marcus, Ed Zitron and Yann LeCunn are wrong, and believe in AI: How do you reconcile things when AI thinks the market is highly likely to collapse?

Quote: "The entire system only works if AI revenue grows fast enough to outrun the obsolescence treadmill. For that to happen, Microsoft would need approximately $130 billion per year in new AI revenue, Google $100 billion, Amazon $120 billion, and Meta $70 billion. Against a current reality of $18 billion in total industry AI revenue and zero profits, that gap is not a rounding error. It is the entire bet."

pron20d ago

Stock market collapses and technological success are two very different things. The internet led to a market collapse just as it started showing real promise. One of the problems is that you can't invest in a technology, only in companies, and oftentimes the companies that turn a technology into financial success are not the ones that exist when the technology is in its infancy. It's not unlikely that LLM will be a huge success while Nvidia, OpenAI, and Anthropic collapse.

jurgenburgen20d ago

When people are talking about an AI bubble, they are explicitly talking about the stock market. It’s not at all about the question if LLMs are useful or not.

1 more reply

lostmsu20d ago

From skimming that chat: it doesn't, no matter how much you tried to steer it into that direction. It barely reluctantly agreed under some hypotheticals, but it never agreed to the hypotheticals actually being true.

This submission is junk, and the the title is editorialized.

Direct reply from Claude: https://claude.ai/share/628e6a1d-087d-4454-95e3-cf8a3c4a5b72

"The case for a bright future is strong."

I trust Claude over JCW2001

JCW2001OP10d ago

Ha. Try again

utopiah20d ago

Because AI doesn't think and apparently a lot of people using it don't think critically either.

dgritsko20d ago

Exactly. LLMs at their core are just fancy autocomplete. Extremely fancy, to be sure, and the output that they predict can be very useful - but people who anthropomorphize them or ascribe higher significance to the generated output seem to be missing this.

xnorswap20d ago

LLMs are heavily biased by what it is told.

It is not magic, it is not an oracle, it is not good at analysis, and is particularly bad at predicting the future.

Doches20d ago

Garbage in, garbage out.

(If OP was trying to make the bull case then the same snark would still apply.)

doitLP20d ago

How is it not a good analysis? Genuine question: it seems like it is summarizing the bear case which to my very limited understanding continues to be reinforced

cainxinth20d ago

Substantive issues with this submission aside, it’s a mistake to have such long conversations with an LLM. The longer they go, the more likely they are to accumulate errors. The latest models all claim to be able to handle long conversations, but in my experience they still don’t do as good a job as just pasting your conversation into a new thread.

athrowaway3z20d ago

I made this comment half a year ago as well, but i believe AI is going to bring down the profitability of the big tech companies by a lot.

Instead of massive scaling advantages which has given software its extreme valuation, it now hit on something that is almost a perfect commodity. Energy and depreciation are easy to calculate and its subject to global competition.

Great for consumers, less so for people looking for a ROI.

ramses020d ago

I worked at yahoo during its (in retrospect) decline.

It used to be hard to be "web scale" and available, now that's either k8s or a few checkboxes in AWS.

Yahoo used to be able to "coast" on the compellingness of their services because 80% attractive with 100% available and 100% global reach crushes 90% attractive with 95% available and 25% global reach.

I was often confused by the hyperfocus of analysts asking "Is Y! a tech company or a content company?"

What they were really asking was if we should be valuing Yahoo! as 30%+ margin on putting ads next to Yahoo! News articles, or 10x multiplier on originating GMail/Search?

I think "data is the only moat", and in a way that goes back to the "first to market / eBay" POV, and the difference between first to market and fast follower is super interesting!

SoKamil20d ago

a) LLM’s don’t have introspection capabilities

b) in my observation, the longer context window, the more unhinged/pessimistic LLM output becomes

doitLP20d ago

How are the responses here unhinged? They are summarizing a lot what the bear case has been shouting for the last two years

ilikerashers20d ago

LLM's are like accountants looking at the past.

The numbers are bad therefore it will collapse.

tim-star20d ago

were just sharing claude chats now

4b11b420d ago

LMs. don't. "think". It. Just. Generates.some.text. based. On. Whatever. You. Dumped. Into. It

oytis20d ago

Chatbot log as a submission? Really?

trevyn20d ago

I dunno, it's kind of fun to watch people faceplanting as they try to ride their mind-bicycles.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

21 comments

JCW2001OP21d ago

Those who think Gary Marcus, Ed Zitron and Yann LeCunn are wrong, and believe in AI: How do you reconcile things when AI thinks the market is highly likely to collapse?

pron20d ago

jurgenburgen20d ago

When people are talking about an AI bubble, they are explicitly talking about the stock market. It’s not at all about the question if LLMs are useful or not.

1 more reply

lostmsu20d ago

This submission is junk, and the the title is editorialized.

Direct reply from Claude: https://claude.ai/share/628e6a1d-087d-4454-95e3-cf8a3c4a5b72

"The case for a bright future is strong."

I trust Claude over JCW2001

JCW2001OP10d ago

Ha. Try again

utopiah20d ago

Because AI doesn't think and apparently a lot of people using it don't think critically either.

dgritsko20d ago

xnorswap20d ago

LLMs are heavily biased by what it is told.

It is not magic, it is not an oracle, it is not good at analysis, and is particularly bad at predicting the future.

Doches20d ago

Garbage in, garbage out.

(If OP was trying to make the bull case then the same snark would still apply.)

doitLP20d ago

How is it not a good analysis? Genuine question: it seems like it is summarizing the bear case which to my very limited understanding continues to be reinforced

cainxinth20d ago

athrowaway3z20d ago

I made this comment half a year ago as well, but i believe AI is going to bring down the profitability of the big tech companies by a lot.

Great for consumers, less so for people looking for a ROI.

ramses020d ago

I worked at yahoo during its (in retrospect) decline.

It used to be hard to be "web scale" and available, now that's either k8s or a few checkboxes in AWS.

I was often confused by the hyperfocus of analysts asking "Is Y! a tech company or a content company?"

What they were really asking was if we should be valuing Yahoo! as 30%+ margin on putting ads next to Yahoo! News articles, or 10x multiplier on originating GMail/Search?

I think "data is the only moat", and in a way that goes back to the "first to market / eBay" POV, and the difference between first to market and fast follower is super interesting!

SoKamil20d ago

a) LLM’s don’t have introspection capabilities

b) in my observation, the longer context window, the more unhinged/pessimistic LLM output becomes

doitLP20d ago

How are the responses here unhinged? They are summarizing a lot what the bear case has been shouting for the last two years

ilikerashers20d ago

LLM's are like accountants looking at the past.

The numbers are bad therefore it will collapse.

tim-star20d ago

were just sharing claude chats now

4b11b420d ago

LMs. don't. "think". It. Just. Generates.some.text. based. On. Whatever. You. Dumped. Into. It

oytis20d ago

Chatbot log as a submission? Really?

trevyn20d ago

I dunno, it's kind of fun to watch people faceplanting as they try to ride their mind-bicycles.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse