If you had been holding a representative basket of tech stocks right before the dot-com bust (a classic "hype cycle"), you would be beating the S&P 500 today if you just held on to them, even after most of those companies went bankrupt. Even on crypto, it is too early to call.
The fact that you bridge so easily from crypto to LLM suggests to me you're not really considering these things on the merits and are over-focused on the who and cultural alignment of the people behind various inventions, rather than the creations themselves. /2c
>you bridge so easily from crypto to LLM
They are both things that have been massively hyped. I'm not saying they are the same in other ways.
The plan is when the kids are college aged to see how it nets out and pay as much as I can from that.
But the huge difference with, for example, blockchain, is that despite all the attempts by the hypesters to explain what revolutionary tech it was, I was always left thinking one of "Umm, OK, but what do I actually do with it" or "How is this better than just a normal database?" or "Actually, that's not possible." Blockchain was nearly always a cool tech looking for a use case beyond cryptocurrencies.
But with LLMs, I never felt that way. I was immediately blown away by how cool ChatGPT was, and how much real value I got out of it. Sure, I think there is plenty of overhyping (and I think it's a little funny how companies are trying to add that little star icon everywhere, even when it's just annoying), but even if I ignore what everyone says about it and just use the tech personally, by myself, I'm still left thinking "Damn this is just magic" many times a day.
If a very unreliable person told me it was raining I'd check myself, instead of just assuming it was sunny because they are prone to lying.
Given what we have working today, it's a matter of how transformative it all is, not whether it will be useful at all: More like the dot com boom than blockchains
If anything, it was worse a few years ago - especially during peak pandemic and the reddit issues. Nowadays people seem more positive.
There's a few key differences. One being, if we compose a system with the output of "regular person", and "regular person" makes a mistake, they can be held accountable.
If someone created an anti-gravity suit, then in a couple of years we'd just be whining about them - how uncomfortable they are, how inconvenient to be banging into people all the time ...
Yeah, and it's getting quantitatively better, all the time. There is a clear progress curve.
Go back and look at the comical quality of GPT2 outputs, and the things people were getting excited about on Twitter. I wrote GPT off at the time because it just seemed like Markov model shenanigans to me, then I tried GPT3.5 and had my mind blown (but was still skeptical due to all the hallucinations), and GPT4 has finally convinced me that this is inevitable, and it's now just an iterative improvement game.
> sensical conversation
Was this 'sensical' comment written by an llm?