We’ve been here before. ChatGPT isn’t functionally all that different from ELIZA from the 1960s. It’s tricking people just the same, into thinking it’s more than it really is.
I’m also eagerly awaiting the discovery process that will show that all of this generative AI was built on mass copyright infringement. OpenAI certainly ingested the entire z-library. They’d have to be stupid not to, right? If they didn’t use it, less ethical competitors would have beaten them to market.
Oh, I’m sure they used some sketchy subcontractor to do it. We’ve all seen a variation of this in our careers, where a dataset was acquired under questionable circumstances, and you don’t ask and don’t tell if you want to keep your job, right?
And that’s just speculation. There’s hard evidence for the Getty Images lawsuit.
Regarding the questionable training data I agree, but the likely outcome is that those AI models will be used regardless.
They kind of weren’t super wrong. What people usually mean by this is that the product doesn’t match the hype. It very much didn’t.
Even now we’re only starting to catch up to the breathless promises from back then. Barely.
The main difference now is that the barrier to entry is lower so it’s starting to get some interesting uses cases come out
One of it's only recurring warnings was the danger of underestimating what a "stochastic parrot" can do in practical terms.
In what way has Nvidia abandoned the consumer market? They have something like 80%+ market share on discrete gaming GPUs and still rake in billions a year from GeForce, which at their revenue is a sizable fraction.
And what makes you say that current AI hype is a grift? Do you truly think that the work with transformers is just a fad? I swear people on this site were saying the same thing about AI in general 3+ years ago before transformers blew up the scene.