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。

The AI Gold Rush

56 点作者 imartin2k大约 1 年前

7 条评论

Animats大约 1 年前
<i>&quot;Many equipment providers grew businesses, often summarized as “picks and shovels” suppliers.&quot;</i><p>NVidia.<p>The &quot;AI boom&quot; may take longer to get from today&#x27;s &quot;sort of works&quot; to &quot;works really well&quot;. Look at self-driving cars. 20 years ago, they sort of worked in the DARPA Grand Challenge. But most of the self-driving car companies flopped. Waymo has ground through to limited success, but not profitability. Probably around 10 years out, self-driving cars will be profitable.<p>What we have as LLM-type AI now is kind of like that. It&#x27;s fun when it works, but too flaky to trust. There&#x27;s a market for that, but it&#x27;s mostly in ads and &quot;assistants&quot; that have to be checked by humans. This limits scaling and utility. We need AI systems that are clear on what they know and what they don&#x27;t know, and don&#x27;t &quot;hallucinate&quot; or get lost, before they can be trusted to do things on their own. And ways to keep the AI slaves subservient (the &quot;alignment&quot; problem.) Those are easier problems than ones already solved, but they are not solved yet.
评论 #39640095 未加载
评论 #39639046 未加载
评论 #39639255 未加载
评论 #39639043 未加载
评论 #39639103 未加载
评论 #39639940 未加载
评论 #39640315 未加载
Shrezzing大约 1 年前
&gt; The technological roots of LLMs go back many years. Yet, today’s experience looks like more than the continuation of a preexisting trend. Something in the zeitgeist changed recently,<p>I think the thing in the zeitgeist that changed isn&#x27;t anything to do with the technology, it&#x27;s that truth itself is tangible in the modern society. We&#x27;re still grappling with the &quot;post truth&quot; era. We&#x27;re all constantly deceived by marketing, PR, politicians, adverts, social media, each other, etc - and we&#x27;re all fully aware of that deceit.<p>In the face of that, an LLM that&#x27;s only accurate 90% of the time looks acceptable, like a complete technology, and therefore worthy of investing in.
评论 #39639142 未加载
danybittel大约 1 年前
&gt; Many settings, such as your car, would improve if a driver could talk with a car instead of pushing buttons.<p>You have watched too much sci-fi and not read enough UX.
评论 #39639723 未加载
评论 #39639570 未加载
dzink大约 1 年前
The analogy is only valid for NVDA. The real wealth with GPT goes to its millions of users - for $20 per month you can get the productivity of 10+ highly educated people in the hands of each user, available day and night. Those users can very realistically do what entire companies did and ship software or anything else in record time as solo creators. That boundless human invention, limited only by your imagination and levels of energy.
评论 #39639587 未加载
评论 #39639478 未加载
padolsey大约 1 年前
The follow-up&#x27;s better imho: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;digitopoly.org&#x2F;2024&#x2F;03&#x2F;07&#x2F;after-the-gold-rush&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;digitopoly.org&#x2F;2024&#x2F;03&#x2F;07&#x2F;after-the-gold-rush&#x2F;</a><p>E.g. On biases in LLM responses and lack of explainability:<p>&gt; Believe it or not, there is a historical precedent in old industrial technologies for making progress in commercial products and services before experts understood the underlying determinants. At the start of the Bessemer process being used by the US steel industry, for example, steel mills produced high-grade steel at a large scale even though nobody knew the chemistry to explain why ore from some North American locations worked so well. The science of chemistry had not caught up with the industrial processes. As a result, workers needed to learn how to fine-tune performance by recognizing the errors without knowing the underlying causes. The early US steel industry did live for decades with such uncertainty – and furnaces blew up occasionally – but there was too much money to be made.<p>That&#x27;s a really good analogy. The question is: in this modern era of higher regulation, will capitalistic drive and risk-appetite (for things blowing up) be able to outpace lawmakers?
mo_42大约 1 年前
I think the main difference is that digging out gold nuggets doesn&#x27;t make society more wealthy just the lucky individual. Sure there are positive side effects from which we still benefit.<p>However, I use LLMs every day to be more productive. They provide me with ideas for programming, cooking, and even planning a vacation. They&#x27;re not perfect but interns at work aren&#x27;t either. Besides that ChatGPT seems more like the combined knowledge of hundreds of interns (but not seniors).<p>So I wouldn&#x27;t call it a gold rush because LLMs benefit society already plus the future positive side effects of investments in computer chips.
评论 #39639159 未加载
hyperthesis大约 1 年前
AI Summer