As with all AI so far, still lacking to see the "why". Microsoft came out hard, but still don't see why other than generating potentially very wrong information or goofy looking pictures.
As with all AI so far, still lacking to see the "why". Microsoft came out hard, but still don't see why other than generating potentially very wrong information or goofy looking pictures.
I think AI is a loser for everyone but Nvidia for a while because of this. Google, Meta, Apple, Microsoft, etc will all be forced to spend billions to attempt AI but it will be years before it is good enough to generate significant profits. Even then, there may only be 1-2 winners, like Google was with traditional search.
The only way I see AI making anyone trillions is if someone cracks the nut of true AGI and somehow manages to keep it under wraps.
What makes someone trillions of dollars from AGI?
solving many million dollar problems.
But like here's the progression: 1. How does AI currently make money? (the answer is it doesn't, but like what's the world we think exists where a chat bot is monetizeable?) 2. What does AGI need to look like where it can actually solve many million dollar problems? 3. What million dollar problems does it solve?
If the answers to this are as easy as they sound, then the responses to this should be easy to churn out, but instead everyone has shortcut that AGI == $$$, without showing the logic path.
a response could look like: AGI solves P != NP -> $1M AGI solves customer service -> $100B AGI solves ??? -> $1B
I'm making up ideas and numbers here, but this doesn't seem like that weird of an assumption to test given how everyone on here just takes it as gospel.
While AI from MSFT won’t be as ground breaking as hyped now, it still will be big enhancement for Office and Cloud offerings. Microsoft providing Word/Excel/Powerpoint with existing capabilities to big companies is going to be long run winner.
NVidia is going to be always just like all hardware providers strong but still not in a place like MSFT having governments and F1000 corporations basically paying MSFT all the money they want.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7224046...
Basically the same "why" as the Dot Com stuff: you have to sell pet food online because everyone else is selling stuff online.
At some point the hype will subside and we'll get the actual useful day-to-day applications of whatever technology is in vogue right now.
Tech hype dates back to (at least) canal mania:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_Revolutions_and_...
* https://www.pwlcapital.com/investing-technological-revolutio...
The main signals on Search have been AI/ML for >5 years now.
At least for Google, AI isn't just a parlor trick.
Say more? "Passing the entire web through ML-model inference to generate 'signals' — IQL expressions? — at the same global-concurrent throughput as previous CPU-based indexing" sounds like something that should have required Google to get so many TPUs fabbed that it would have eaten the entire world's chip-fab capacity for multiple years. It's hard to imagine what they could have done to get around that.
Did Google come up with some kind of model-hardcoded ASICs that could do this single task orders-of-magnitude more efficiently than more "flexible" GPU/TPU-based approaches would? Maybe, for example, they used some process to convert the weights of an arbitrary Transformer into VLSI for a search memory / memristor network / etc — essentially giving them an inferencing DSP?
Or maybe they figured out a mostly-lossless method (that either doesn't use ML itself — or maybe uses ML hyper-optimized into some CPU-viable model that fits in L2 cache) to pre-process + normalize webpage documents into chunks that could be effectively content-deduplicated? (And then the ensuing inference passes — being context-free — would only ever need to be done once for a given chunk, significantly reducing the inter-page costs, and massively reducing the same-page over-time costs, of inference.)
Or something else I can't even think of. (I'm guessing it's this one.) Either way, crazy stuff.
I heard about the self-flying helicopter at CMU and robots playing soccer, but really finishing the science and engineering to have computers mundanely outperforming humans at safe city driving is remarkable. Except of course to current industry observers & wall street analysts, who are asking "will this ML mumbo jumbo ever amount to anything practical? Or is lane keeping with human vigilance and alarm-setting the pinnacle?"
Do we have this?
Bunch of stuff in maths/sciense I solved with lookup tables and it doesn’t take away that rest of solution is still complex.
That's not really Apple's forte.
My crystal ball isn't working, but I wouldn't bet on Apple.
"AI can be wrong" - like that hasn't been a problem with humans since forever... Like with any information, you have to be diligent. I teach my kids this also.
debug -- cursor.sh for coding/debugging with your codebase as context. also just raw inputting into claude is pretty effective.
in terms of consumer use for it to just search for info, and write code is a total failure. i mean by their words really.
we are basically told it will be integrated in dang near everything and uses electricity
And at a larger scale, is this help in general worth the energy and water expenditure needed?
Edit: to be clear the second point is not against the individual, but questioning whether the modest gains in convenience for all users are worth the environmental and infrastructure cost
And then there's the tasks where Google just doesn't play.
Things like this: "Write the code to parse the following line with PyParser: { blah=0x10, foo=0x20, l={1,4,5,7}, t = { a="hello", b="hi"} }"
Google just gives me a link to PyParser (yay!), ChatGPT provides the full code and even runs it to show that it works.
Helpful and useful? Yes. A huge help? Game changing? I would say no.
Aren't the majority of costs in feeding and training the model? If they hope to present a product that has access to pertinent and timely information I'm not sure how they're going to drastically reduce their costs on queries alone.
> still lacking to see the "why"
The "why" for AI should be blindingly obvious. The fact that this is an open question suggests that these simplistic large language models are still several orders of magnitude away from what that endpoint would be.
This is a tiny stepping stone on a very long journey. It was foolish and insane to invest in it at the level Microsoft did.
AI could turn out the same. You need good training data, but the biggest set out there (Internet) was quickly polluted to hell by AI and now it’s far less valuable for training.
I’m skeptical of its long term value for the average user.
Microsoft poured god-knows-how-many billions into Bing with barely anything to show for it. They hover just below 4% market share. AI is their one chance to actually upset the Google monopoly. But only if they manage to pull it off before Google, hence all their mediocre rushed-to-market AI stuff.
Of course the real money with current AI is elsewhere. But replacing first-line customer support with AI isn't the kind of story you will see promoted by PR departments.
Power Automate offers an Adobe connector that purports to do so but my data loss prevention policies forbid me to connect to third parties.
GPT4o does a great job of taking a PDF and giving me exactly the contents in a csv of my specification, but again, can't do this with customer data.
I'm looking at what is possible with llama3 as an azure service but it looks very complex to set up, I think I need to have a "data verse" and a network configuration to allow serverless compute to connect to my files. That will be nice tho when I can have the results of the PDF extraction insert rows into my excel files.
I don't use Salesforce but I'm jealous of people who have a platform that they can actually integrate AI with their customer data.
I also tried the various open source OCR tools, but the error rate was way too high. Obivious faults like l or I in place of 1 in the middle of numbers. AWS Textract was pretty good with numbers, although it did stutter on the dates in a few invoices.
For most of the invoices I was able to self-check the results as account balances and totals from month to month had to match. That made the end results from messy scripts extracting to CSV reasonably trustworthy.
I don't know man, I'm sure it's simpler than I think, my biggest hurdle with Azure is that it's not clear to me what's included in my license, in the region I'm operating in etc. For example the AI Model Builder is not available to me, I don't know if cognitive services should be. I haven't taken any training tho, not complaining just expressing that it's intimidating.