TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Crypto collapse? Get in loser, we’re pivoting to AI

63 点作者 Al0neStar将近 2 年前

12 条评论

maxbond将近 2 年前
The first third of the article is kinda polemic, it won&#x27;t really convince anyone needing convincing.<p>This however I thought was the substance of it:<p>&gt; The VCs’ actual use case for AI is treating workers badly.<p>&gt; The Writer’s Guild of America, a labor union representing writers for TV and film in the US, is on strike for better pay and conditions. One of the reasons is that studio executives are using the threat of AI against them. Writers think the plan is to get a chatbot to generate a low-quality script, which the writers are then paid less in worse conditions to fix. [Guardian]<p>&gt; Executives at the National Eating Disorders Association replaced hotline workers with a chatbot four days after the workers unionized. “This is about union busting, plain and simple,” said one helpline associate. The bot then gave wrong and damaging advice to users of the service: “Every single thing Tessa suggested were things that led to the development of my eating disorder.” The service has backtracked on using the chatbot. [Vice; Labor Notes; Vice; Daily Dot]<p>&gt; Digital blackface: instead of actually hiring black models, Levi’s thought it would be a great idea to take white models and alter the images to look like black people. Levi’s claimed it would increase diversity if they faked the diversity. One agency tried using AI to synthesize a suitably stereotypical “Black voice” instead of hiring an actual black voice actor. [Business Insider, archive]
评论 #36184991 未加载
yashvg将近 2 年前
I agree that a lot of crypto grifter seem to be moving on to AI. But it seems like the author is doing the same thing. Since no one is interested in reading his criticism of cypto anymore, he is now moving on to AI. Legend.
评论 #36183527 未加载
评论 #36184754 未加载
rsrsrs86将近 2 年前
It doesn’t need to be AGI to be dangerous. As argument, just consider how the next elections will be. GPT is at least a cannon for fake news. A fake News machine gun
评论 #36182345 未加载
评论 #36183940 未加载
ilrwbwrkhv将近 2 年前
It&#x27;s crazy to think Sequoia was started by Valentine who invested in so many iconic companies.<p>And now just look at Sequoia. The bottom of the barrel with the worst takes in technology. How much a company can fall.
评论 #36183557 未加载
评论 #36183749 未加载
euroderf将近 2 年前
I do like this quote:<p>&quot;Don’t want to worry anyone, but I just asked ChatGPT to build me a better paperclip.&quot;<p>Given the means, would it kill anyone who gets in the way of more paperclips?
评论 #36183519 未加载
GaggiX将近 2 年前
From reading this article, it seems that the biggest reason AI sucks is that it won&#x27;t actually destroy humanity.<p>This article seems more like a critique of AI doomerism.
Zemtomo将近 2 年前
Bad writing,.combining two independent and unrelated things and not knowing what and how LLM and a lot more works.<p>Funny this peace could have been written by chatgpt with the same or better quality.<p>Only good thing is that crypto VC is now starting to invest in something worthy
paulpauper将近 2 年前
Yeah QQQ is up 10% and BTC down 10% from 2 month ago. Going to get worse for Bitcoin and crypto overall. Bitcoin does not generate profits, does not benefit from AI hype&#x2F;boom, does not hedge inflation. It has no upside, only downside.
morelandjs将近 2 年前
“ChatGPT, a chatbot developed by Sam Altman’s OpenAI and released in November 2022, is a stupendously scaled-up autocomplete. Really, that’s all that it is.”<p>Stopped reading after this part. To be so intentionally misleading and dismissive of truly miraculous work by the LLM community and the OpenAI team is not for me.
评论 #36257311 未加载
评论 #36257303 未加载
richard___将近 2 年前
What is this guys tech credentials
评论 #36183736 未加载
评论 #36184773 未加载
ftxbro将近 2 年前
me and the bros have already fully pivoted
deltaninenine将近 2 年前
&gt;People’s susceptibility to anthropomorphizing an even slightly convincing computer program has been known since ELIZA, one of the first chatbots, in 1966. It’s called the ELIZA effect.<p>I&#x27;m tired of these arguments. Very very few people are anthropomorphizing chatgpt.. very few. The majority of people both technical and non technical who have played with chatGPT in a non trivial way are aware of the chatbots limitations. It&#x27;s like recognizing a crazy person on the street. Humans are well equipped for that.<p>This argument characterizes the average person as some kind of stupid buffoon as if he&#x2F;she can&#x27;t tell chatGPT really screws shit up. Sure there are a few gullible outliers but as a generality his claim is simply completely false. Pretty much everyone and I mean everyone is aware about the limitations of LLMs.<p>This is a weak and repeated trope that&#x27;s being regurgitated as if the critics are LLMs themselves.<p>Let me specify exactly what&#x27;s going on. People who are afraid of&#x2F;support AI are more speaking to the potential of AI. Why? Because just as much as this thing hallucinates about half the time it answers a complex question with an equally complex and correct answer and that answer in isolation is often indistinguishable or even at times superior to a humans answer.<p>Yes we know it hallucinates and forgets shit. This is obvious, no need to readdress an obvious weakness that everyone is aware about. If critics want to have a real discussion then they seriously need to address the actual strengths and phenomenons of LLMs instead of repeatedly highlighting the obvious weaknesses.<p>Because while we have somewhat of an explanation for the hallucinations we currently don&#x27;t know how chatGPT was able to do something like this:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.engraved.blog&#x2F;building-a-virtual-machine-inside&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.engraved.blog&#x2F;building-a-virtual-machine-inside&#x2F;</a><p>Read to the end of you haven&#x27;t seen this. The ending is what is quite unexplainable by experts. You can&#x27;t just trivialize that entire post as if it was just a statistical phenomenon. There&#x27;s obviously an alternative angle here.
评论 #36182409 未加载
评论 #36184232 未加载
评论 #36184790 未加载