Wait... the unspoken 'money saving' aspect of "A.I." is not [southpark]"they took our jebs!"? That is, it was presumed *the* plan was c-suite replaces everyone down to janitor with "A.I." and oh so much is saved in health care, pensions, ...yellow sticky notes; that's not how they intend to "use it"? they just don't want the existing hires to use it? [:confused cuttlefish emoji:]
I think that means that (for the lucky duckies) their departments will be cut by 80 percent because everything can be done by AI, but then the remaining 20 percent will be told they have to do everything by hand instead.
Apparently one of the more sensible uses in some companies is "write me a script to do this thing I usually do by hand" -- which costs tokens -- followed by just running the script when needed, which costs no tokens. But yeah. Companies are discovering the difference between productivity metrics (like words per minute) and things that are actually useful for business (like "the right words").
From a comment I posted to r/LocalLLM on reddit, about why I am using AI that I run on my own computer, rather than models in the cloud. Local AI is far less capable, and slower. But I think that's temporary:
I don't want to use the frontier models for a few reasons. 1) I am retired, and this is a hobby. I don't want to put a lot of money into token fees. 2) My understanding is that frontier models are heavily subsidized. I don't want to get addicted to crack. 3) I think the future is local LLMs. They have to get better, in absolute and in relative terms. Models are so ridiculously expensive and resource-intensive to train and use, and its still very early days. There will have to be vast improvements in this area, just based on multiple financial incentives. 4) I view this as an updated version of the mainframe/PC battle from the 80s and 90s. PC-based architectures dominate except in a few places. PC descendents (by which I mean Intel/ARM based Linux systems) are vastly more powerful than they used to be. I think the same will happen with local models relative to frontier models. 5) Due to intense competition in the AI space, and the differing interests of different players, someone is always going to undercut competition by releasing a newer, more capable open source model. It's a race to the bottom.
I'm soon-to-be retired, @jack. I've been in IT for over 40 years. We're currently unlimited at my workplace, and it took me about 2 days to get our AI to write some code for me such that it solved a problem my Assembler/COBOL/sequential processing brain couldn't wrap itself around.
Anyway, I've been saying since everyone got excited about "the cloud," that it's the newest iteration of the mainframe service bureau. People look at me like I have two heads! ;-)
I didn't know one could have a desktop AI! I will do some Duck-Duck-Going.
IMHO that the AI bubble, the dot com bust, and the RE bubble that caused the great recession are just symptoms of the excessive concentration of wealth in this country. We can laugh about the stupid shit the wealthy buy, but at some level, at least some of that ends up paying the wages of the people that made that crap. Far more insidious it the fact that most of the money of the super rich ends up sloshing around Wall Street. And now Wall Street has far more money than it can find productive uses for. So it ends up being stuffed into whatever speculative investment looks like might pay off. Of course that ends up causing a big asset bubble. Rinse and repeat.
The reason that I think that we need to reign in the ever increasing concentration of wealth is not because I'm jealous or angry at the rich. It's not the fact that this tends to end badly, although that is also true. I just think that the current degree of concentration of wealth hurts the economy writ large. It is a good thing to have a dynamic investment market where one person's savings can be turned into another person's productive investment. But at a guess, Wall Street has ~5 times more money than it can find productive use for. So it creates asset bubbles. It lends out money that in the long term causes more harm than good. It warps politics to protect the interests of an ever smaller number of super rich. It has created a series of algorithmic high frequency trading which is basically automated front-trading.
Wait... the unspoken 'money saving' aspect of "A.I." is not [southpark]"they took our jebs!"? That is, it was presumed *the* plan was c-suite replaces everyone down to janitor with "A.I." and oh so much is saved in health care, pensions, ...yellow sticky notes; that's not how they intend to "use it"? they just don't want the existing hires to use it? [:confused cuttlefish emoji:]
I think that means that (for the lucky duckies) their departments will be cut by 80 percent because everything can be done by AI, but then the remaining 20 percent will be told they have to do everything by hand instead.
Apparently one of the more sensible uses in some companies is "write me a script to do this thing I usually do by hand" -- which costs tokens -- followed by just running the script when needed, which costs no tokens. But yeah. Companies are discovering the difference between productivity metrics (like words per minute) and things that are actually useful for business (like "the right words").
> When the investor capital is gone, so go the non-consensual deep fakes.
i hope that's true... and worry it's not.
it doesn't cost too much to run your own models. at scale: yes it costs. person by person, maybe not so much.
From a comment I posted to r/LocalLLM on reddit, about why I am using AI that I run on my own computer, rather than models in the cloud. Local AI is far less capable, and slower. But I think that's temporary:
I don't want to use the frontier models for a few reasons. 1) I am retired, and this is a hobby. I don't want to put a lot of money into token fees. 2) My understanding is that frontier models are heavily subsidized. I don't want to get addicted to crack. 3) I think the future is local LLMs. They have to get better, in absolute and in relative terms. Models are so ridiculously expensive and resource-intensive to train and use, and its still very early days. There will have to be vast improvements in this area, just based on multiple financial incentives. 4) I view this as an updated version of the mainframe/PC battle from the 80s and 90s. PC-based architectures dominate except in a few places. PC descendents (by which I mean Intel/ARM based Linux systems) are vastly more powerful than they used to be. I think the same will happen with local models relative to frontier models. 5) Due to intense competition in the AI space, and the differing interests of different players, someone is always going to undercut competition by releasing a newer, more capable open source model. It's a race to the bottom.
I'm soon-to-be retired, @jack. I've been in IT for over 40 years. We're currently unlimited at my workplace, and it took me about 2 days to get our AI to write some code for me such that it solved a problem my Assembler/COBOL/sequential processing brain couldn't wrap itself around.
Anyway, I've been saying since everyone got excited about "the cloud," that it's the newest iteration of the mainframe service bureau. People look at me like I have two heads! ;-)
I didn't know one could have a desktop AI! I will do some Duck-Duck-Going.
IMHO that the AI bubble, the dot com bust, and the RE bubble that caused the great recession are just symptoms of the excessive concentration of wealth in this country. We can laugh about the stupid shit the wealthy buy, but at some level, at least some of that ends up paying the wages of the people that made that crap. Far more insidious it the fact that most of the money of the super rich ends up sloshing around Wall Street. And now Wall Street has far more money than it can find productive uses for. So it ends up being stuffed into whatever speculative investment looks like might pay off. Of course that ends up causing a big asset bubble. Rinse and repeat.
The reason that I think that we need to reign in the ever increasing concentration of wealth is not because I'm jealous or angry at the rich. It's not the fact that this tends to end badly, although that is also true. I just think that the current degree of concentration of wealth hurts the economy writ large. It is a good thing to have a dynamic investment market where one person's savings can be turned into another person's productive investment. But at a guess, Wall Street has ~5 times more money than it can find productive use for. So it creates asset bubbles. It lends out money that in the long term causes more harm than good. It warps politics to protect the interests of an ever smaller number of super rich. It has created a series of algorithmic high frequency trading which is basically automated front-trading.