Welp, it was ‘fun’ while it lasted. Time for everyone to adjust their expectations to much more humble levels than what was promised and move on to the next sceme. After Metaverse, NFTs and ‘Don’t become a programmer, AI will steal your job literally next week!11’, I’m eager to see what they come up with next. And with eager I mean I’m tired. I’m really tired and hope the economy just takes a damn break from breaking things.
But if it doesn’t disrupt it isn’t worth it!
/s
I just hope I can buy a graphics card without having to sell organs some time in the next two years.
Don’t count on it. It turns out that the sort of stuff that graphics cards do is good for lots of things, it was crypto, then AI and I’m sure whatever the next fad is will require a GPU to run huge calculations.
AI is shit but imo we have been making amazing progress in computing power, just that we can’t really innovate atm, just more race to the bottom.
——
I thought capitalism bred innovation, did tech bros lied?
/s
I’m sure whatever the next fad is will require a GPU to run huge calculations.
I also bet it will, cf my earlier comment on rendering farm and looking for what “recycles” old GPUs https://lemmy.world/comment/12221218 namely that it makes sense to prepare for it now and look for what comes next BASED on the current most popular architecture. It might not be the most efficient but probably will be the most economical.
My RX 580 has been working just fine since I bought it used. I’ve not been able to justify buying a new (used) one. If you have one that works, why not just stick with it until the market gets flooded with used ones?
If there is even a GPU being sold. It’s much more profitable for Nvidia to just make compute focused chips than upgrading their gaming lineup. GeForce will just get the compute chips rejects and laptop GPU for the lower end parts. After the AI bubble burst, maybe they’ll get back to their gaming roots.
I’d love an upgrade for my 2080 TI, really wish Nvidia didn’t piss off EVGA into leaving the GPU business…
AI doesn’t need to steal all programmer jobs next week, but I have much doubt there will still be many available in 2044 when even just LLMs still have so many things that they can improve on in the next 20 years.
move on to the next […] eager to see what they come up with next.
That’s a point I’m making in a lot of conversations lately : IMHO the bubble didn’t pop BECAUSE capital doesn’t know where to go next. Despite reports from big banks that there is a LOT of investment for not a lot of actual returns, people are still waiting on where to put that money next. Until there is such a place, they believe it’s still more beneficial to keep the bet on-going.
Well, they also kept telling investors all they need to simulate a human brain was to simulate the amount of neurons in a human brain…
The stupidly rich loved that, because they want computer backups for “immortality”. And they’d dump billions of dollars into making that happen
About two months ago tho, we found out that the brain uses microtubules in the brain to put tryptophan into super position, and it can maintain that for like a crazy amount of time, like longer than we can do in a lab.
The only argument against a quantum component for human consciousness, was people thought there was no way to have even just get regular quantum entanglement in a human brain.
We’ll be lucky to be able to simulate that stuff in 50 years, but it’s probably going to be even longer.
Every billionaire who wanted to “live forever” this way, just got aged out. So they’ll throw their money somewhere else now.
I used to follow the Penrose stuff and was pretty excited about QM as an explanation of consciousness. If this is the kind of work they’re reaching at though. This is pretty sad. It’s not even anything. Sometimes you need to go with your gut, and my gut is telling me that if this is all the QM people have, consciousness is probably best explained by complexity.
https://ask.metafilter.com/380238/Is-this-paper-on-quantum-propeties-of-the-brain-bad-science-or-not
Completely off topic from ai, but got me curious about brain quantum and found this discussion. Either way, AI still sucks shit and is just a shortcut for stealing.
That’s a social media comment from some Ask Yahoo knockoff…
Like, this isn’t something no one is talking about, you don’t have to solely learn about that from unpopular social media sites (including my comment).
I don’t usually like linking videos, but I’m feeling like that might work better here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa2Kpkksf3k
But that PBS video gives a really good background and then talks about the recent discovery.
some Ask Yahoo knockoff…
AskMeFi predated Yahoo Answers by several years (and is several orders of magnitude better than it ever was).
And that linked accounts last comment was advocating for Biden to stage a pre-emptive coup before this election…
https://www.metafilter.com/activity/306302/comments/mefi/
It doesn’t matter if it was created before Ask Yahoo or if it’s older.
It’s random people making random social media comments, sometimes stupid people make the rare comment that sounds like they know what they’re talking about. And I already agreed no one had to take my word on it either.
But that PBS video does a really fucking good job explaining it.
Cuz if I can’t explain to you why a random social media comment isn’t a good source, I’m sure as shit not going to be able to explain anything like Penrose’s theory on consciousness to you.
It doesn’t matter if it was created before Ask Yahoo or if it’s older.
It does if you’re calling it a “knockoff” of a lower-quality site that was created years later, which was what I was responding to.
edit: btw, you’ve linked to the profile of the asker of that question, not the answer to it that /u/half_built_pyramids quoted.
Great.
So the social media site is older than I thought, and the person who made the comment on that site is a lot stupider than it seemed.
Like, Facebooks been around for about 20 years. Would you take a link to a Facebook comment over PBS?
My man, I said nothing about the science or the validity of that comment, just that it’s wrong to call Ask MetaFilter “some Ask Yahoo knockoff”. If you want to get het up about an argument I never made, you do you.
I’ve spent time with an AI laptop the past couple of weeks and ‘overinflated’ seems a generous description of where end user AI is today.
So should we be fearing a new crash?
Do you have money and/or personal emotional validation tied up in the promise that AI will develop into a world-changing technology by 2027? With AGI in everyone’s pocket giving them financial advice, advising them on their lives, and romancing them like a best friend with Scarlett Johansson’s voice whispering reassurances in your ear all day?
If you are banking on any of these things, then yeah, you should probably be afraid.
I don’t think AI is ever going to completely disappear, but I think we’ve hit the barrier of usefulness for now.
Have any regular users actually looked at the prices of the “AI services” and what they actually cost?
I’m a writer. I’ve looked at a few of the AI services aimed at writers. These companies literally think they can get away with “Just Another Streaming Service” pricing, in an era where people are getting really really sceptical about subscribing to yet another streaming service and cancelling the ones they don’t care about that much. As a broke ass writer, I was glad that, with NaNoWriMo discount, I could buy Scrivener for €20 instead of regular price of €40. [note: regular price of Scrivener is apparently €70 now, and this is pretty aggravating.] So why are NaNoWriMo pushing ProWritingAid, a service that runs €10-€12 per month? This is definitely out of the reach of broke ass writers.
Someone should tell the AI companies that regular people don’t want to subscribe to random subscription services any more.
I work for an AI company that’s dying out. We’re trying to charge companies $30k a year and upwards for basically chatgpt plus a few shoddily built integrations. You can build the same things we’re doing with Zapier, at around $35 a month. The management are baffled as to why we’re not closing any of our deals, and it’s SO obvious to me - we’re too fucking expensive and there’s nothing unique with our service.
That’s a good point about the “AI as a service” model that is emerging.
I was reading that NaNoWriMo has had a significant turnover on their board die to the backlash against their pro-AI stance: https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/nanowrimo-ai-controversty-1.7314090
As someone dabbling with writing, I bit the bullet and tried to start looking into the tools to see if they’re actually useful, and I was impressed with the promised tools like grammar help, sentence structure and making sure I don’t leave loose ends in the story writing, these are genuinely useful tools if you’re not using generative capability to let it write mediocre bullshit for you.
But I noticed right away that I couldn’t justify a subscription between $20 - $30 a month, on top of the thousand other services we have to pay monthly for, including even the writing software itself.
I have lived fine and written great things in the past without AI, I can survive just fine without it now. If these companies want to actually sell a product that people want, they need to scale back the expectations, the costs and the bloated, useless bullshit attached to it all.
At some point soon, the costs of running these massive LLM’s versus the number of people actually willing to pay a premium for them are going to exceed reasonable expectations and we will see the companies that host the LLM’s start to scale everything back as they try to find some new product to hype and generate investment on.
deleted by creator
Argh, after 25 years in tech I am surprised this keeps surprising you.
We’ve crested for sure. AI isn’t going to solve everything. AI stock will fall. Investor pressure to put AI into everything will subside.
The we will start looking at AI as a cost benefit analysis. We will start applying it where it makes sense. Things will get optimised. Real profit and long term change will happen over 5-10 years. And afterwards, the utter magical will seem mundane while everyone is chasing the next hype cycle.
Truth. I would say the actual time scales will be longer, but this is the harsh, soul-crushing reality that will make all the kids and mentally disturbed cultists on r/singularity scream in pain and throw stones at you. They’re literally planning for what they’re going to do once ASI changes the world to a star-trek, post-scarcity civilization… in five years. I wish I was kidding.
I’m far far more concerned about all the people who were deemed non essential so quickly after being “essential” for so long because AI will do so much work slaps employees with 2 weeks severance
I’m right there with you. One of my daughters love drawing and designing clothes and I don’t know what to tell her in terms of the future. Will human designs be more valued? Less valued?
I’m trying to remain positive; when I went into software my parents barely understood that anyone could make a living of that “toy computer”.
But I agree; this one feels different. I’m hoping they all feel different to the older folks (me).
What do people mean with “AI bubble”?
The term “AI bubble” refers to the idea that the excitement, investment, and hype surrounding artificial intelligence (AI) may be growing at an unsustainable rate, much like historical financial or technological bubbles (e.g., the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s). Here are some key aspects of this concept:
-
Overvaluation and Speculation: Investors and companies are pouring significant amounts of money into AI technologies, sometimes without fully understanding the technology or its realistic potential. This could lead to overvaluation of AI companies and startups.
-
Hype vs. Reality: There is often a mismatch between what people believe AI can achieve in the short term and what it is currently capable of. Some claims about AI may be exaggerated, leading to inflated expectations that cannot be met.
-
Risk of Market Crash: Like previous bubbles in history, if AI does not deliver on its overhyped promises, there could be a significant drop in AI investments, stock prices, and general interest. This could result in a burst of the “AI bubble,” causing financial losses and slowing down real progress.
-
Comparison to Previous Bubbles: The “AI bubble” is compared to the dot-com bubble or the housing bubble, where early optimism led to massive growth and investment, followed by a sudden collapse when the reality didn’t meet expectations.
Not everyone believes an AI bubble is forming, but the term is often used as a cautionary reference, urging people to balance enthusiasm with realistic expectations about the technology’s development and adoption.
The fact that you used AI to write this is… perfection.
What?! Of course I didn’t! You’re imagining things!
Not everyone believes an AI bubble is forming
Well, the AI’s not wrong. No one believes a bubble is forming, since it’s already about to burst!
Thank you for the explanation
-
As in as soon as companies realise they won’t be able to lay off everybody except executives and personal masseuses, nVidia will go back to having a normal stock price.
Rich people will become slightly less grotesquely wealthy, and everything must be done to prevent this.
A.I., Assumed Intelligence
More like PISS, a Plagiarized Information Synthesis System
Thank fucking god.
I got sick of the overhyped tech bros pumping AI into everything with no understanding of it…
But then I got way more sick of everyone else thinking they’re clowning on AI when in reality they’re just demonstrating an equal sized misunderstanding of the technology in a snarky pessimistic format.
I’m more annoyed that Nvidia is looked at like some sort of brilliant strategist. It’s a GPU company that was lucky enough to be around when two new massive industries found an alternative use for graphics hardware.
They happened to be making pick axes in California right before some prospectors found gold.
And they don’t even really make pick axes, TSMC does. They just design them.
Imo we should give credit where credit is due and I agree, not a genius, still my pick is a 4080 for a new gaming computer.
They just design them.
It’s not trivial though. They also managed to lock dev with CUDA.
That being said I don’t think they were “just” lucky, I think they built their luck through practices the DoJ is currently investigating for potential abuse of monopoly.
Yeah CUDA, made a lot of this possible.
Once crypto mining was too hard nvidia needed a market beyond image modeling and college machine learning experiments.
Go ahead and design a better pickaxe than them, we’ll wait…
Go ahead and design a better pickaxe than them, we’ll wait…
Same argument:
“He didn’t earn his wealth. He just won the lottery.”
“If it’s so easy, YOU go ahead and win the lottery then.”
My fucking god.
“Buying a lottery ticket, and designing the best GPUs, totally the same thing, amiriteguys?”
His engineers built it, he didn’t do anything there
In the sense that it’s a matter of being in the right place at the right time, yes. Exactly the same thing. Opportunities aren’t equal - they disproportionately effect those who happen to be positioned to take advantage of them. If I’m giving away a free car right now to whoever comes by, and you’re not nearby, you’re shit out of luck. If AI didn’t HAPPEN to use massively multi-threaded computing, Nvidia would still be artificial scarcity-ing themselves to price gouging CoD players. The fact you don’t see it for whatever reason doesn’t make it wrong. NOBODY at Nvidia was there 5 years ago saying “Man, when this new technology hits we’re going to be rolling in it.” They stumbled into it by luck. They don’t get credit for forseeing some future use case. They got lucky. That luck got them first mover advantage. Intel had that too. Look how well it’s doing for them. Nvidia’s position over AMD in this space can be due to any number of factors… production capacity, driver flexibility, faster functioning on a particular vector operation, power efficiency… hell, even the relationship between the CEO of THEIR company and OpenAI. Maybe they just had their salespeople call first. Their market dominance likely has absolutely NOTHING to do with their GPU’s having better graphics performance, and to the extent they are, it’s by chance - they did NOT predict generative AI, and their graphics cards just HAPPEN to be better situated for SOME reason.
they did NOT predict generative AI, and their graphics cards just HAPPEN to be better situated for SOME reason.
This is the part that’s flawed. They have actively targeted neural network applications with hardware and driver support since 2012.
Yes, they got lucky in that generative AI turned out to be massively popular, and required massively parallel computing capabilities, but luck is one part opportunity and one part preparedness. The reason they were able to capitalize is because they had the best graphics cards on the market and then specifically targeted AI applications.
deleted by creator
They didn’t just “happen to be around”. They created the entire ecosystem around machine learning while AMD just twiddled their thumbs. There is a reason why no one is buying AMD cards to run AI workloads.
I feel like for a long time, CUDA was a laser looking for a problem.
It’s just that the current (AI) problem might solve expensive employment issues.
It’s just that C-Suite/managers are pointing that laser at the creatives instead of the jobs whose task it is to accumulate easily digestible facts and produce a set of instructions. You know, like C-Suites and middle/upper managers do.
And NVidia have pushed CUDA so hard.AMD have ROCM, an open source cuda equivalent for amd.
But it’s kinda like Linux Vs windows. NVidia CUDA is just so damn prevalent.
I guess it was first. Cuda has wider compatibility with Nvidia cards than rocm with AMD cards.
The only way AMD can win is to show a performance boost for a power reduction and cheaper hardware. So many people are entrenched in NVidia, the cost to switching to rocm/amd is a huge gambleOne of the reasons being Nvidia forcing unethical vendor lock in through their licensing.
As I job-hunt, every job listed over the past year has been “AI-drive [something]” and I’m really hoping that trend subsides.
“This is an mid level position requiring at least 7 years experience developing LLMs.” -Every software engineer job out there.
Yeah, I’m a data engineer and I get that there’s a lot of potential in analytics with AI, but you don’t need to hire a data engineer with LLM experience for aggregating payroll data.
there’s a lot of potential in analytics with AI
I’d argue there is a lot of potential in any domain with basic numeracy. In pretty much any business or institution somebody with a spreadsheet might help a lot. That doesn’t necessarily require any Big Data or AI though.
That was cloud 7 years ago and blockchain 4
Reminds me of when I read about a programmer getting turned down for a job because they didn’t have 5 years of experience with a language that they themselves had created 1 to 2 years prior.
The tech bros had to find an excuse to use all the GPUs they got for crypto after they bled that dry
The tech bros had to find an excuse to use all the GPUs they got for crypto after they
bled that dryupgraded to proof-of-stake.I don’t see a similar upgrade for “AI”.
And I’m not a fan of BTC but $50,000+ doesn’t seem very dry to me.
No, it’s when people realized it’s a scam
If that’s the reason, I wouldn’t even be mad, that’s recycling right there.
Why you gotta invent a new hardware just to speed up ai augh these companies
I’m just praying people will fucking quit it with the worries that we’re about to get SKYNET or HAL when binary computing would inherently be incapable of recreating the fast pattern recognition required to replicate or outpace human intelligence.
Moore’s law is about similar computing power, which is a measure of hardware performance, not of the software you can run on it.
Unfortunately it’s part of the marketing, thanks OpenAI for that “Oh no… we can’t share GPT2, too dangerous” then… here it is. Definitely interesting then but now World shattering. Same for GPT3 … but through exclusive partnership with Microsoft, all closed, rinse and repeat for GPT4. It’s a scare tactic to lock what was initially open, both directly and closing the door behind them through regulation, at least trying to.
My only real hope out of this is that that copilot button on keyboards becomes the 486 turbo button of our time.
Meaning you unpress it, and computer gets 2x faster?
Actually you pressed it and everything got 2x slower. Turbo was a stupid label for it.
I could be misremembering but I seem to recall the digits on the front of my 486 case changing from 25 to 33 when I pressed the button. That was the only difference I noticed though. Was the beige bastard lying to me?
It varied by manufacturer.
Some turbo = fast others turbo = slow.
Lying through its teeth.
There was a bunch of DOS software that runs too fast to be usable on later processors. Like a Rouge-like game where you fly across the map too fast to control. The Turbo button would bring it down to 8086 speeds so that stuff is usable.
Damn. Lol I kept that turbo button down all the time, thinking turbo = faster. TBF to myself it’s a reasonable mistake! Mind you, I think a lot of what slowed that machine was the hard drive. Faster than loading stuff from a cassette tape but only barely. You could switch the computer on and go make a sandwich while windows 3.1 loads.
Actually you used it correctly. The slowdown to 8086 speeds was applied when the button was unpressed.
When the button was pressed the CPU operated at its normal speed.
On some computers it was possible to wire the button to act in reverse (many people did not like having the button be “on” all the time, as they did not use any 8086 apps), but that was unusual. I believe that’s was the case with OPs computer.
Oh, yeah, a lot of people made that mistake. It was badly named.
TIL, way too late! Cheers mate
That’s… the same thing.
Whops, I thought you were responding to the first child comment.
I was thinking pressing it turns everything to shit, but that works too. I’d also accept, completely misunderstood by future generations.
Well now I wanna hear more about the history of this mystical shit button
Back in those early days many applications didn’t have proper timing, they basically just ran as fast as they could. That was fine on an 8mhz cpu as you probably just wanted stuff to run as fast as I could (we weren’t listening to music or watching videos back then). When CPUs got faster (or it could be that it started running at a multiple of the base clock speed) then stuff was suddenly happening TOO fast. The turbo button was a way to slow down the clock speed by some amount to make legacy applications run how it was supposed to run.
Most turbo buttons never worked for that purpose, though, they were still way too fast Like, even ignoring other advances such as better IPC (or rather CPI back in those days) you don’t get to an 8MHz 8086 by halving the clock speed of a 50MHz 486. You get to 25MHz. And practically all games past that 8086 stuff was written with proper timing code because devs knew perfectly well that they’re writing for more than one CPU. Also there’s software to do the same job but more precisely and flexibly.
It probably worked fine for the original PC-AT or something when running PC-XT programs (how would I know our first family box was a 386) but after that it was pointless. Then it hung on for years, then it vanished.
The fact that is is from LA Times shows that it’s still significant though
