And it's not even online machine learning, depending how does one see the very limited in context learning.

The offline learning is also a multi million dollar endeavor atm for most capable models. That does not take into account the cost of acquiring gpus.

Somehow all of this is missing from most articles.

I'm very happy people start pointing that out

Technically ML is the process that is used to create a model/product, which in turn was coined "AI". Not great naming, but are people really still dying on that hill? "Cloud" is also a stupid name for a managed datacenter/IAAS/PAAS, it's a collection of water droplets after all. Yet here we are. What value does it add to lament these naming fails, especially after it's long permeated the public Zeitgeist.

Because AI already was in the public zeitgeist as a term for something that is decidedly not what is being offered by companies like OpenAI, and beyond it's meaning in the zeitgeist, the wording itself, Artificial Intelligence, belies much more than these models actually are, which is generative models. They are not intelligent in any way a layman would call intelligent.

> "Cloud" is also a stupid name for a managed datacenter/IAAS/PAAS

"Cloud computing" though as referred to datacenters makes a degree of sense, certainly more than calling GPT an actual mind.

And it seems pretty clear to me that based on the way these companies and their CEOs are leaning into fantasies of Skynet and such, that they're not only encouraging the conflation, but using it to sell the product. And by all means, sell your product, but if you open that conversation by lying to my face, don't expect to close a sale.

It's gonna hit a wall just by the nature of what it is have a massive crash and then we'll have to wait another 10 years for the next breakthrough