The article is making pretty clear arguments for costs of generative AI, and raising the author's opinion that it isn't worth it. Just claiming it is in fact worth it without anything to support that isn't super helpful.
The article is making pretty clear arguments for costs of generative AI, and raising the author's opinion that it isn't worth it. Just claiming it is in fact worth it without anything to support that isn't super helpful.
Similar AI endeavors have been underway for medicine and human health.
The author is making extremely shallow, flawed arguments that hinge on an ignorant (or possibly, deliberately narrow-minded) understanding of what generative AI is, how it is already being used, and the magnitude of what is already being achieved with it.
We'll see if any of them end up being viable as far as manufacturing and material availability go, and whether they're better replacements for existing tech like batteries. The hope is that we'll have Jarvis inventing a new material for Iron Man's suit, but we could always end up with an endless pile of technically feasible but functionally useless materials.