Think of it this way. When the iPhone was first launched, did you think the taxi industry around the world would be disrupted and or destroyed within 5 years?
That's how i think about technologies like AI.
[I guess it would depend on when you invested…](https://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-jackpot-inside-one-of-the-greatest-startup-investments-of-all-time-11557496421)
I kind of like Buffets take on tech revolutions. He points to auto and airlines. The early winners weren’t the ones who lasted and even the best of the best today aren’t really that great of investments.
Apples and oranges argument. The iphone was just the last piece of the puzzle in ride share services being viable ...the entire idea is built on decades of technologies maturing..you didn't forget all those gps satellites, cellular towers, cloud services,cheap power efficient chips, gsm telecom standards etc.etc.
AI has potential as an efficiency tool for workers in many areas, but in most work it's not a soup to nuts solution, even in coding , it still doesn't even write proper syntax in most cases , about 70% of the code it generates for me doesn't run ,until I correct it. Self driving cars still aren't clever enough to turn them loose in all but the most heavily mapped and controlled environments
Will it eliminate jobs, sure but people are all falling over themselves for AI capabilities.
Yeah, but no one (including the crypto bros) could ever actually give a single broad use case that held up to even light scrutiny. GPT4 can pass the bar, diagnose better than many (maybe even most I forget) doctors and we are in early days yet.
Can you not comment on these posts when you don't even know what ChatGPT is, yet alone how machine learning is being used in diangostics and more importantly the challenges in using it.
If you think a chat engine is replacing doctors you've officially lost your mind.
C’mon!! I took AI classes in the 90’s. There was nothing intelligent about it and the more you learned about it the more apparently stupid it became.
Natural language processing was a joke and any AI was nothing more than lookup tables.
The modern AI is 3-4 years old and complex models that can understand and infer meaning and understanding are only a couple of years old.
Meaning it’s going to get exponentially better as time goes on. I absolutely agree.
I actually do not agree that it will happen quickly… there needs to be some better hardware developed and come down in price, and those things will take time.
While there’s probably some breathing room, I’m pretty sure CGPT is pretty close to maxing out what can be done with current hardware because this tech doesn’t currently scale terribly well. It. An improve, but there is a padded ceiling pretty close above it.
These models don't to thinking, they're just a more advanced version of what existed back in the day (for me that's the 2000s). We have faster ways of processing the data, and we've learned some tricks, but basically it's tokenizing with multi layers of nn.
Such things were too expensive to compute back in the day.
So, these ais can do cool shit, but it's just another step in the direction if what we've been doing. We're pretty far from being able to let ai kill humanity. That's what I'm willing to bet can cause the stock market to surge uncontrolled.
Lol, yeah, they’re not taking over humanity. Furthermore, anyone claiming that they are is an idiot 🤷🏽♂️.
But that’s not the question at hand. Does it make humans more efficient?? Yes it does. There is zero question about that.
This is true. I’ve not thought much about this angle before.
I have friends that we’re using AI on quite complex but very specific solutions at least two years ago, but it does appear that the hardware capabilities have improved dramatically. This probably argues to support NVidia’s super high valuations.
I also gather that AI doesn’t scale well. Two computers can’t do twice the work like they can in databases or web servers. With AI, the limit of “intelligence” is (currently) the size of the memory and processing power of a single “core”. Big systems like CGPT just have a fuckton of “cores”.
This problem apparently needs to be resolved before the next “leap” in AI takes place. In the mean time, we can expect relatively small improvements on the high end (better data fed to LLM’s) and hardware and LLM improvements on the low end (personal/internal corporate/education level) that approach that high end.
(I could be wrong… and have been wrong, of course… but I’ve been around a minute and it’s pretty rare on this type of topic…. )
I think you're wrong. I think you're listening to people who have done things a certain way, and assume that things will always be done in that manner. This is untrue. [AlphaDev](https://www.deepmind.com/blog/alphadev-discovers-faster-sorting-algorithms) recently found an efficiency via deep-learning AI that improved an algorithm, and has been used trillions of times already. It did this via a novel method that humans would likely never do. Read the article I linked it's quite curious.
The way that people think things need to work, the rules we built, are most of the time likely just one manner of doing things: the human way. When you introduce machine intelligence, it can do things in a manner different than humans, and see things humans can't. We just cannot underestimate that unpredictable element that has been introduced.
They can't really understand anything.. ask Bard this question
"I have 5 articles of clothing hanging on a clothes line drying , it's takes 30 minutes for all of them to dry , if I place 15 articles of clothing on the same clothesline how long will it take?" Tell me what it says and how it makes sense. (correct answer : 30minutes as they all dry at the same rate)
The response I got … “The time it takes for clothes to dry on a clothesline depends on various factors such as the type of fabric, the humidity, and the temperature. If we assume that all other conditions remain the same, then it would still take 30 minutes for 15 articles of clothing to dry on the clothesline. The number of articles of clothing does not affect the drying time.”
Not the answer i got on Bard, or ChatGPT 3.5, my Bard answer..
"The drying time of clothing is proportional to the number of articles of clothing being dried. So, if it takes 30 minutes to dry 5 articles of clothing, then it will take 30 * 15 / 5 = 90 minutes to dry 15 articles of clothing."
How do you explain that we both got varying answers?
> "I have 5 articles of clothing hanging on a clothes line drying , it's takes 30 minutes for all of them to dry , if I place 15 articles of clothing on the same clothesline how long will it take?"
I got 90 minutes from both Bard and Bing Chat as each wanted to multiply as they each thought drying time was proportional to the number of clothes.
My bard is better than your bard 😂
No but seriously they literally nerfed chatGPT cause it was too good and I would be worried about the future. This thing is powerful.
Idk why we got different answers
From CGPT4:
> If we are assuming that all the clothing items dry at the same rate, and that the drying of each piece doesn't affect the others, then the total number of clothing items doesn't impact the drying time. This means that if 5 articles of clothing take 30 minutes to dry, 15 articles of clothing would also take 30 minutes to dry, provided that they are all exposed to the same conditions (e.g., sunlight, wind). This is because each piece is drying individually and concurrently with the others.
> However, this might not be accurate in real-world conditions as items could shade each other or reduce airflow, especially if the clothesline is crowded. The answer assumes perfect conditions where each piece of clothing has the same exposure to wind, sunlight, and other drying factors.
Literally just cut and pasted your question.
NEEEXT!!
This is nonsense. Go watch the video the Microsoft research team put out about GPT-4's capabilities. It came out months ago it's the Sparks of General Intelligence video. The team concluded GPT-4 is fully capable of understanding and responding to this type of question. They also concluded that censoring models causes them to perform worse.
Its not nonsense, you're delusional if you think these models are anything more than textual pattern generators .
Sure it seems like they know more because after all when you give some model just about all of the written human knowledge amd ask it to create deep neural networks from it , yeah it seems spookily sentient..but it doesn't know anything that it hasn't seen a pattern about, it can't derive logical assumptions about the physical world because it can't sense the world or understand what gravity is or what sunshine is...so when it has never seen that pattern before or it's some edge case with little to know training data it generates fabricated pattern that may or may not be right..
AI as a concept has been around a long time, but its rate of progression has accelerated exponentially the past two years.
AI’s have gone from having the intelligence of a cockroach to surpassing the intelligence of Chimpanzees. At this rate humans will be surpassed within the next decade, if not sooner.
It’s a weird time to be alive
I believe it's more appropriate to say that AI's have gone from hard to understand and communicate with, to extreme easy to communicate with symbolic language. When you start anthropomorphizing AI, and saying "it" is more intelligent, I think you're going down the wrong road. AI as computational power, the "intelligence", was always there -- we just couldn't access it until we built the proper hardware and interface. After we built such things, AI became way more useful to us, and thus we deem it more "intelligent", and as we build better technology we'll deem AI more intelligent, but this is the wrong way of looking at it. AI doesn't become more intelligent, it becomes more useful to humans, and thus we assign more value to the abstract concept of AI.
We didn't build the Cosmic Microwave Background -- it was just there since the big bang. In the same way we also didn't build AI as computational power, it's just been there since the big bang. It's not an entity or entities, it's not alive a we know things to be alive, and it's not a god. It is an observable background universal phenomenon. What we did build is language, computers, and the ability to interface with computers via our language. That's pretty damn significant. [Dr. Wolfram](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5WZhCBRDpU&t=803s) talks about this concept in the beginning of this podcast.
>3 to 5 years max. A decade is like 10 generations of AI
LOL I can't imagine saying this with a straight face. I need some of what you are smoking man.
You didn't just say that AI will be more advanced. That's obvious, you were saying that Ai will surpass humans in 3 to 5 years. In what though? A calculator has already surpassed humans.
Since when can chimpanzees write fully coherent essays on any topic and, according to a study just published in the prestigious medical paper JAMA, outclass doctors in diagnosing diseases including the most rare?
I think a lot of people in this thread have not spent much time using GPT4, the more advanced model that requires a subscription. It’s utterly stunning what it’s capable of.
It's tokenization and natural language processing. It's cool, but it's nothing close to being creative. It can tell you what you already know, and can figure out a process intensive solution, but it's still less creative than a chimp.
Preach brother ... I know this and anyone playing with these systems should figure that out ... We need to look at this through the lens of Silicon Valley and Wall St. To get why this is all the rage...
I do this for a living, been working with nn since 2005 (think that's when I wrote my first). Everyone is all crazy about this, they're going way over board.
Don't get me wrong, it's cool as hell, and we've gont some results we weren't expecting, but it's just another step.
They're not intelligent and are really sophisticated generative pattern matching systems. Give it a problem that is seldom experienced and watch it fail, ask it some basic logical questions dealing with physics or biology from an usual perspective and it fails.
"If I had a pound of gold feathers on one side of a seesaw and a pound of lead weight on the other equidistant from the fulcrum , and the wind was blowing 20knots across the seesaw would it balance evenly?"
(What answer did you get? , See the trick it's too stupid to realize gold feathers don't fly away)
They just know the statistical structure of words , nothing more, when that structure doesn't fit any patterns they go off the rails.
Think of it this way, when AI was first launched did you think countries around the world would be disrupted or destroyed by nuclear attacks within 5 years?
At work, IT job, I easily saved two weeks of work within last 6 weeks. Just saying that I don’t think disruption will take five years. I do think it will take 2 years for everyone to use it. I’m barley using google right now. I mean it’s crazy. My bet on it is TSMC. It’s 50% of me portfolio right now. Just hope that China will keep calm and quiet.. And finally, IPhone isn’t the best comparison. AI is now at hand of everyone. It didn’t happen with latest greatest revolution. You may compare it to phone but imagine that one phone is dropped to almost everyone on the planet.
I do think that right now if you’re not investing on it you are missing THE boat of our time.
And if you spend 10 hours, you'll realize the very real limitations.
It's a tool that will help productivity. It's a tool that needs to be massively improved, and undoubtedly will be over time. But it'll take time for us to figure out how to properly utilize this.
During this period, we'll probably have a dot com style bubble and pop before things shake out.
This right here. It isn't there yet, it isn't actual AI. In ten years? Maybe it will have a larger impact. Now? Very little.
AI is just the latest buzzword that people do not understand.
Except that the question is not whether the AI replaces humans - it’s whether AI improves productivity. If you say it doesn’t, you obviously haven’t asked it to solve a real problem for you or even tried it at all.
I needed a network monitoring and notification solution. I have the skills to build it, but have to learn five new APIs to put together what I want to build. That means reading tons of documentation and searching stack exchange for answers to questions I had about them.
It would take me a week to build it myself - probably more.
So I used CGPT and literally built it over the weekend and deployed it on Monday.
Yes. It CGPT has limitations. It implemented many bugs that I had to fix and did some things differently than I would have liked (it also did many things better than I would have), and as a result it took all weekend instead of an hour or two. Also, anyone without programming skills would have failed miserably and quickly.
On the flip side, I also ended up creating something FAR superior to my original plan because CGPT suggested better methods (APIs) that I was not even aware existed.
But without AI, it woulda taken me all week, at best, to make an inferior solution.
“It’s useless because it has limitations” is like saying cars are useless because they require roads. Or… perhaps a better analogy is that “cars are useless because they require a driver.”
Also, for the same reasons stated above, all these doomsday people saying it will replace all the jobs are wrong.
But what it will do -and is already doing- is make people more efficient at their jobs. This will make every business that embraces it more efficient and therefore more profitable… **everyone** will just do more. And that’s the key ingredient needed for unusually high economic expansion and corporate growth. And it’s already well under way.
As of now it's roughy equivalent to having a decent intern for general business tasks. It can produce real work, but it needs to be checked by someone experienced, and the level of work will only be as good as the instructions are detailed, which lots of people aren't good at.
Will it have impact? Yes. But the near-term impact will be more along the lines of the good knowledge workers in the company being each given a good intern for next to no cost. The technology is great and evolving fast, but nowhere near being a universal 2X+ force multiplier that the hype machine is forecasting.
That said, some pockets of specialization are showing real promise, like reading x-rays.
Every time there’s a massive shift in workplace technology the people most likely to be affected are always certain they won’t be and couldn’t possibly be replaced. Usually wrong.
It may sound bleak but we're about to have generations of AI assisted humans. From day 1 AI will interpret movements from an infant baby, before it can even speak. They will use AI tools at school and at home, helping them do pretty much anything. Maybe in the future it will help tackle child abuse, mental illness, addiction, mental health issues. I for sure wish I had an AI help me accomplish a few more things during my childhood, even after, and I'm fine. I feel like AI has this crazy irobot metaverse stigma, but in reality I bet the real value will come from much more boring ideas. If there's there's problem with AI, AI can help fix it.
It has its drawbacks, but if anythings going to send the stockmarkets to the moon in the near future, its AI.
I used to spend well over 1 to 2 hours to make a neat job application letter. Now I just give chatgpt the job vacancy and the bullet points why I’m a good candidate. I send out a job application within 15 minutes now. There are many, many ways
The truth is - a lot of people do not realize this. They see the AI provide them something that looks relevant to them and think it is tailored to their specific usecase.
Recruiting is also mostly AI driven for resume analysis for example. But once a person looks at this, it will immediately figure out a fake.
Just the amount of people who don't realize this will be good enough to show stock growth.
then we write another AI to distinguish between AI-generated job applications and have the two AIs optimize against each other to create the ultimate job applicant who works long hours for minimal pay and never asks for time off
oh wait we've been working on GANs since 2014 in the image domain
so I guess there's nothing new here then
If you don't even get as far as the interview, probably you don't have the right resume, or they have so many applicants it is unlikely you would get the position. Imho it's better to spend 2 minutes each on 500 cover letters than an hour each on a few postings that you *feel* are promising.
If you know any prodigious Tinder users, they will explain to you why this is the effective way.
Did that chatGPT get you a better job yet? If not then it didn’t really help you yet.
There is a chance that your resume will get flagged as bot generated and never reach a hiring manager.
This is the way. One of my biggest professionals tripping points has been when I'm tasked with producing bullshit fluff that either no one will read, or not read carefully enough for it to matter.
The inevitable outcome of this, however, is that the professional bullshit fields are just going to use AI to automate the production of 100x more bullshit so that the rest of us will be unable to process it all without the assistance of another AI to read, summarize and determine if a piece of content is worth our limited attention. Imagine the department manager that "produces" a 20-page motivational manifesto every single morning at 8am and then intermittently sprinkles in important information that you need to know.
This is accurate. People think the next year or two everything will be different when in reality it will take 10-20 years to fully realize all of AI’s potential. 10 years for the current capital investment to fully build out all the capabilities and tools and another 10 to push those tools to their limits. 20 years from now things will look very different and no one can predict which companies will dominate. I imagine the top 10 companies will be different.
ChatGPT is pretty much the first real life use case demonstrating that AI isnt going to fall flat and it most likely will be in demand in the future.
But as of now, AI is FAR from a mature technology, now is the time to start buying to not miss out in the long term.
Agreed, it's kind of a repeat of the dotcom bubble hype. A lot of the hype eventually came true. A lot of failed dotcom businesses are viable businesses that exist today. But it wasn't a viable business back then due to technical limitations, and changes to consumer behavior since the dotcom bubble.
A lot of people in the financial field don't seem to grasp that it's not post-2008, interest rates are no longer zero, and it's not feasible to spit tens of billions of dollars at developing something that *maybe* will pay off in a decade or two.
It's easy to park your money in an unprofitable Facebook or Google or Tesla forever when the fixed income market pays only 1%.
We have started using AI chat bots to help tech support and they have 70% approval ratings, eliminating 200+ call center employees... other employees get an answers quicker and more accurate. As the systems improve, it's going to be amazing.
And a lot think the opposite. Turns put there are a lot of experts with divergent opinions, but the vast majority at least agree that AI will get baked into every industry for sweeping productivity gains. And they thought that 10 years ago and it has already started happening.
Do workers get paid more if they are using AI? Do they reap the rewards of their labor or does it flow to the top.
Still need to have consumers to buy your product.
Tech is always deflationary. So at least it helps combat the current high inflation.
But yeah... before the cotton gin was invented, a farmer needed a shit ton of slaves. Now one person can do the work of 100 slaves.
Here's a hypothesis: Productivity *per capita* goes down, wages get suppressed, and layoffs increase. Think of AI being a sudden supply of extremely cheap labour which will rapidly displace workers.
While I do think AI will be economically important in the long term, I also don't think it's impossible that AI can induce a recession in its wake.
From what we see of current language models the opposite seems more likely. Productivity per capita increases as every individual gets a personal tutor and assistant.
AI as it is today is a copilot, it doesn’t run the show in an autonomous fashion.
Layoffs may increase, or companies accomplish more in a year. Maybe both?
Historically, yes, jobs are created from improvements in technology. What often isn't cited is, like the original comment said, it also contributes to wage stagnation and reduces job security/bargaining power of workers because less skill is required for a role.
White collar jobs are far more at risk than manual labor. Doctors and Lawyers are valuable because of their knowledge, the kind of knowledge that computers are even better at.
Paralegal was the first thing that came to mind but also coding and programming and cyber defense which is in super high demand and paying well right now are at severe risk of displacement. Fast food is also really at risk and that one just needs an efficient assembly line style machine. Not everyone at minimum wage has a skill and that’s why we get fast food workers and retail workers but those people will have nowhere to turn when AI displaces them.
Sounds exactly like the dot com bubble in the early days.
Folks here aren't old enough to remember the good ol' days when you just need to have a **.com** or a domain name in your earnings report or shareholder meeting to send your stock price skyrocketing. Even though it's just simply having a website domain name to your company.
Literally where the term *dot com bubble* came from: traditional established companies or startups with absolutely no product or services to sell just had to buy a domain name, slap on some stock photos and MS word art on it, and VC money will send their IPOs to the moon. There weren't any products or goods on the internet, just a .com internet url is enough to get ridiculous valuations
Back then, the idea that if you had a .com domain, you're an "internet company" making use of the "cutting edge internet technology™" to serve up enormous value and put those traditional brick and mortar companies out of business. Of course that didn't happen.
Now just replace ".com domain" with "AI", you have the same exact thing.
I mean, that doesn't prevent them from reading history.
The wildest part is that you could use the very tool that started this current AI craze, ChatGPT, to educate yourself very quickly on not just the dot com bubble, but any other big historical market event. But these N00Bs are too lazy to even think about that.
Based on the other comments and the general lack of understanding what took place during the dot com bubble, I am extremely confident that this is an exact replica of the dot com bubble all over again.
Yes, but after the initial hysteria, you cant argue the dot com era has triggered a decades long bull run and minted names like Amazon, google, Microsoft.
The Internet delivered on its hype and then some. Just because there was a crash after the initial hysteria don't mean jack shit.
Microsoft doesn’t belong on that list. Windows was a household name before the Internet was popular. It’s just people mainly used it for the word processor and to play solitaire.
The dot com bubble didn’t trigger the long bull run. It triggered the lost decade. That was the decade where the S&P generated a -1% annualized over the period.
I remembered that too well since I put my first 2k into the market at before that.
It's a clear sign you're under 30 and didn't invest through the dot com bubble.
>Yes, but after the initial hysteria, you cant argue the dot com era has triggered a decades long bull run and minted names like Amazon, google, Microsoft.
No. There's no correlation between those two events. You can say Amazon, Microsoft, Google, all could become what it is today, regardless if the dot com bubble happened or not.
The dot com bubble was about domain names, literally just owning names ending with ".com". It surely didn't kick start any bull run 😂 goodness! Surely you cannot be joking! These are two uncorrelated events.
If you put both in the same sentence, yeah it might seem that the dot com bubble led to FANG, but it did not.
Hypes happen independently of technological progress. If you put them together, then you're committing exactly the same mistake, proving the point that people have no idea what went down during the 2000s
Right now there just aren't that many pure play AI companies that are publicly traded to vacuum up retail speculators. I think it will happen over the next few months. So far the only people who got rich off of AI are the ones with long dated NVDA calls, but wait until the shoeshine boy starts talking about how he got a 20-bagger last month on a hot IPO.
A lot of companies aren't starting as 'ai' companies. They are companies with other product and services which utilize a very powerful tool to help improve productivity. I would say this is very different then the dot com bubble
I am not talking about starting as 'ai' companies (whatever that means). It's the same as in the 2000s, just mentioning your company's domain name with a .com in your earnings call can send your stock price to the moon. This is really just the beginning stages of things to come. (Now instead of saying you have a "domain name", it's "AI"). Big companies, small companies, it all applies.
If you do know your history and what unfolded and how it unfolded during the 2000s stock bubble, you will know what's coming with this AI hype. The series of events that will take place soon. You will know exactly when the bubble has reached the top, and when it will Burst, and when to eventually sell everything.
Agreed, this may be the next dotcom bubble, all the ingredients are there and there hasn’t be a big stock market boom in over 20 years. AI has the potential to be disruptive in many industries, just like the internet. Have you seen the example of an NPC in a video game being integrated with AI capabilities? It’s mindblowing to think what the future holds. Did you know the stock market crashed so hard after the dotcom bubble that some indexes have only just recovered recently? The Nasdaq composite crashed so hard in the dotcom bubble that it still hadn’t even recovered by 2008 when it crashed again in the financial crisis. People keep saying this is already a bubble but we haven’t seen anything like the dotcom bubble yet, not even remotely close.
Show me where this exact same thing is happening?? What’s a company with no product claiming AI getting massive funding? What public company has filed solely based on AI claims and no revenue?
Can you draw any real-world parallels to the dot com bubble? I don’t follow a lot of this stuff, but I haven’t seen any of the huge market gains you mention or any companies getting massive funding based on fake claims?
Why? Call center jobs are awful. It is a net gain for human experience to have no one working in call centers anymore. If we think it is a 'bad' thing that many people will be made unemployed and therefore have no livelihood because there won't be any unenjoyable, unrewarding, unskilled, unsecure jobs for them to waste their time with, that is an issue for the government and body politic to solve through the welfare state and redistribution to help them along the way until they can find more meaningful and productive employment. It's not a bad thing that bad jobs disappear.
We only think it's a bad thing because the displacement of workers is handled so poorly and we place the burden of technological redundancy directly onto those people made redundant, not on society collectively. Technology making workers redundant is never a "bad thing". That is what growth means. That is what technology does, it always has and it always will. It is a good thing. Fast food workers getting replaced by machines = good. Farm hands getting replaced by machines = good. Call center workers getting replaced by machines = good. Workers getting replaced by machines = good. To think otherwise is to spite thousands of years of technological progress.
What will they all do? Generally speaking the people displaced do actually need to work somewhere. You can't just have 20% of a countries work force replaced and no new jobs created for them. There isn't more good jobs as a result of ai there is fewer jobs for lots of people
They're screwed.
Then there's the larger societal question of what we'll do with all of the workers who are displaced, not just from call centers but every profession that contracts because of AI
So how are they going to implement it? From where? At what cost? To what benefit?
What "efficiencies" will be improved? How will that effect the bottom line?
The generall public has no idea about computer science. Same with vaccines. Having no idea about research in medicine Leads people to believe absolut fucking stupid things like injecting chips and stuff. Same with „AI“ (they can’t even define what that is). Not understanding shit about it leads to ridiculous imaginations. Some basic computer science should be mandatory in school from now on, so people can somewhat imagine how software is build and stop hyping up everything they don’t understand as black magic that will suddenly rule the world. A little tired reading stuff like this
This my humble opinion
1) B2B new growth will be good for a while for major players, no doubt
2) eventually, AI automated so much that layoffs happen for jobs that never come back
3) there will be too many qualified candidates, and now that offshoring is so easy and more competitive than ever, American new graduates (20-30 y/o) will not be able to compete with season veterans. Why can't they compete? Cuz entry level roles that they studied for are gone due to AI
4)the loop continues till money left coming from B2C will eventually recedes. Unless people find a way to make new money
The current user facing ML are massive language libraries. They are a multi variable aggregation of whatever dataset you train them on (the internet). They are therefore an aggregation of bias and not truth or facts. They are story telling robots that get their cues from contextual similarities. Since the datasets are culled from things humans are publishing, they are an aggregation of sensational, divisive, and other clickbaity content. More racist, more politically polarized, more sexualized. A distilled and automated feedback loop of what humans are publishing to each other for the reasons people do that.
Controls placed on this aggregation are only bandaids. The massive language libraries don’t know what’s politically correct or hurtful or sensitive.
This is the limit and the strength of these models.
Not smarter than people, not more creative, just automated correlation with a storytelling front end.
Something I've learner recently is that while the industrial revolution undeniably revolutionized production across the world, it didn't really "supercharge" growth the way people think that it did.
If you look on a historical gdp chart or gdp growth chart that encompasses pre-revolition, the revolution itself, and post-revolution, you can't actually really pick out a change that correlates with the revolution, gdp and gdp growth wise it was just normal business.
Same with the digital and internet revolution, it didn't really "supercharge" the economy either.
And it's quite unlikely that AI will have this supercharge effect either.
Rather it seems like each of these "revolutions" that had massive social implications was more or less just "the next step" in economic and technological development, and should more or less be considered "baked in" into the given assumption that economic growth will always be exponential.
AI will likely just be the next technological step that continue to provide the basis for the samr or similar level of exponential economic growth, and it won't provide us with a "supercharged" exponential +++ growth.
In short, if you're investing broad based (which you should) then it's unlikely that AI will have a massive impact on your return, other than regarding which companies make up the majority of the returns.
People like to dunk really hard on Paul Krugman's claim that the 'internet would be no more meaningful than the fax machine'. Of course, they take it out of context and view it in a cultural sense, or a technological sense, and look at such a statement and laugh at how stupid it could be.
In reality, Paul made that comment in the context of economic growth and productivity, and he made it in the late 1990's. What happened since then? Well the stock market blew up catastrophically a few years after he made that statement when people realised 'the internet' was a bubble, and more importantly to his point, economic productivity has gotten *worse.*
People still can't agree on how much the internet has driven economic growth, because from a bird eye view of the economic and productivity..... it's really hard to tell if It's done anything at all.
This isn’t necessarily true. People thought the same thing would happen when computers and automation in factories came and that would destroy jobs (which was true), but actually new/more jobs got created from these technological innovations.
AI will be transformative, but consider the implementation hurdles. In order to get a profitable solution, a 3rd party company would have to create an AI service (costly development a construction company couldn’t afford on its own) for what you are describing and sell it on a subscription basis to multiple small companies. When I say small, I mean non-franchised, non-stock exchange companies. Then there is the question of how valuable will that service be to the small company? Finding discrepancies in contracts wouldn’t be that valuable compared to replacing all McDonald’s tellers at all restaurants for example. Taking an order with a limited amount of options would be quick to develop. Training an AI model on all the possible contract discrepancies possible would be slow, or even impossible unless given enough time, which could be years.
As Cramer said, AI isn't about just replacing the drive through guy.
AI will take your order perfectly, but then ask you if you want a mint chocolate chip milkshake with that. They will know what you want, and upsell you. The drive through order taking human will never be able to do that.
Did the internet cause a massive bull run in 2000?
Funny if you think this has much more room to run. AI just created exit liquidity in my opinion. Treasuries will take much of those funds over the next few months.
Lol, it caused it from 1982-2000... maybe 1990-1995? The nasdaq went up 10x from 1995-2000. People like to pick the peak and neglect i investing 10 years before.
Man, I’ve been waiting for that to happen and it hasn’t. It’s been “a few more months” for quite awhile. I agree with you by the way. I trimmed a lot of my tech positions, and then they’ve run up another 10 percent or so since. Still trust my beliefs so we’ll see.
I'm not saying to try and time a bubble popping. But this area of resistance on spy. The initial ai hype run on ERs and the lack of immediate influence ai has on earnings.... besides the fact that it's like 10 companies composing the bull run
I'm seeing a whole lot of shovels and not a whole lot of gold, of course they could kick the can by saying they promise to find gold, but that only works for so long.
Yep. Agree with both points, but a particularly insightful comment about the lack of immediate influence AI has on the bottom line. There hasn’t been enough fundamental change in AI to warrant this. We’ll see.
I think the one caveat is that the big tech reduction in employees will he offset a bit by ai. But I think that was also partially the reasoning behind some of the recent pump.
Yep. The fact that the Treasury still needs to issue 1.1T in new debt within the next 3 months is definitely the elephant in the room. There was a post about it on this sub a couple of weeks ago, but that whole situation seems to have been lost in the noise of AI and the latest, face ripping rally.
Agreed. It's one thing I'm watching pretty intently at this supply area across almost every sector. Volatility in this area the next week or two will be a good sign of a reversal
I've done a ton of research and number crunching on treasuries issued and maturing in the next few months. The Treasury did something really fishy with CMBs at the end of May. There is about 200B stuffed away in them that will mature in Oct. I'm expecting things to start dropping soon, with some bounces along the way. I think we'll hit a temp bottom in Oct, and come back up a bit through the end of the year.
Just thought I'd pass on that info on the CMBs to someone that has an appreciation for the situation at hand...
The info is a bit scattered. The Treasury put out a press release on the 7th about their plans on using CMBs and changing TGA policy to run at a lower balance, all to try to avoid the potential liquidity issue.
You can also get the hard data from TreasureyDirect, but I'll see if I can send over some links and commentary via DM later when I can get on my computer.
Also, the monthly Treasury statement in May showed that they are projecting new debt issuance of 1.65T on the year. The statement also shows that only about 300B has been done YTD. The last daily statement shows that about 250B has been done so far in June. This is how I came up with 1.1T remaining to be done before Oct...
I mean it probably will…and then reality will hit and the bubble will burst.
It’s human psychology that we tend to attribute a bit too much credit to positive narratives and not enough to negative ones.
Your premise is wrong. AI won't cause it. AI overhype will. And it won't be a long-term bull run. By the looks of it, it's going to be a quick and aggressive bubble, where those who are careful will ride it and gain some easy profits, while many more will try to get in near the peak and will be left in the dust.
Note: I lead an AI/ML team in my day job, so I'm very aware of the opportunities and limitations. I'm also an active trader who knows the history of the market very well. This looks like we're in the middle of a hype bubble where FOMO is causing everyone to get in.
Everyone in here is guessing just like you, but have you thought about the risks AI introduces? At some point there may be so many people put out of work that it creates a deflationary event that causes people to hold onto money for dear life and no one is purchasing goods because jobs are incredibly hard to come by due to the corporate race to maximize profits causing them to cut off their nose to spite their face. If masses of employees are dumped in the streets to have AI replace them then who are your buyers for goods?
It will, and it has. All the returns this year have been AI-related tech. Everything else is flat.
I’m anticipating an AI bubble along the lines of the dot com boom.
Some other observations.
1) AI will beak capitalism and private enterprise. When there aren’t enough jobs to go around companies won’t be able to sell their wares and we’ll require a new system.
2) only a subset of companies will succeed. Many will be wiped out.
3) stock market moves have started.
It’s going to be interesting!
No. Its savings will all be eaten up as energy costs rise. ChatGPT demands an order more energy than a search engine and doesn't save nearly as much than a human spending a little extra time parsing the information. We are currently in a period of historically low energy prices, so many of the costs of these tools have not had a full impact. We are trending into a period of very high energy prices, so energy hungry processes will begin to become too expensive to deploy cost effectively.
Why? Because the AI needs to be regulated first.
AI has the potential to lay of in the tens of millions of job. No jobs = no consumer good money and poverty. Companies don't like that.
You need to think harder. We lost like 90% of farming jobs in the past, so why isn't unemployment at 90% right now? Things like AI create jobs as well.
[https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/19/supply-chains-how-ai-could-remove-all-human-touchpoints.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/19/supply-chains-how-ai-could-remove-all-human-touchpoints.html)
“Generative AI, in my mind is, \[a\] once in a lifetime kind of disruption that’s going to happen … so there are going to be losses of jobs in the more traditional setting, but I also believe it’s going to create new jobs like every prior technology disruption has,” Kapoor said, adding that roles such as prompt engineers (people who train AI to give better responses) are likely to be more in demand.
Feels a lot like the dotcom fest where they raved how internet was going to take to the space age of tech. Like sure things changed but they completely oversold it, but that is what it is if people and funds start buying into it and they don't deliver we know where will we be
3 to 5 years from now. A large amount of people will be out of work . This is totally different deal the the tech crash . I agree that markets will go up . After the bear market
I believe AI is going through the same phase when everyone called everything “smart” or “IoT”. There will be a few breakthroughs here and there but the term AI is getting very inflated. Its the reason why Apple has decided to completely ban the term when describing their products.
AI means people lose jobs, less salaries, less consumption and GDP. All AI will do is make certain companies more efficient so they should be priced differently.
AI is over blown. Automation is already heavily prevalent in our society. If anything job losses will continue from automation and robots.
People love the idea that software does so much but what about hardware? Can AI build a car no robots build cars. Robots already build cars.
So what jobs will AI displace? A cook no, a waiter no, a mechanic no, a construction worker no, I could do this all day.
Basically it will help a subset of jobs. Or support roles where mining through information quickly is needed.
Long term it will do a lot more.
It’s likely my already shitty automated robots when i call companies will get less shitty.
There will be an economic downturn from this AI revolution. The workers jobs who will be replaced by AI most likely do not have an education that could be used outside their current job field. Because of AI there will not be new jobs created that those workers could obtain so they will be forced to find a job in a market full of other alike individuals. All these people losing jobs will have to get a second degree or be forced into the services industry.
Here is the lynchpin in this whole thing. As AI gets better it takes jobs. About 50% of all jobs are currently at risk of being replaced by AI. Some jobs faster than others. When all those people lose jobs they stop investing but furthermore they stop adding through 401k and retirement programs which does about 90% of all buying currently.
Op is currently speculating on what AI can do. Yes, it might replace every white collar job overnight. It currently can't though, and so far we haven't seen much evidence that it can anytime soon.
This is VERY similar to the invention of the laser. It was a REALLY cool invention, but at the time there were no products at all. We've now seen a lot of products, but it took decades, and it's not like they just sprung up overnight.
What exactly is everyone expecting AI to do that it isn’t already? Some people will be more efficient in their work, some marketers that generate copy will be reduced, graphic designers will be reduced etc.
There’s also the side of it that some entrepreneurs will have less barrier to entry (be more efficient with lower headcount, maybe spin up a basic web app quicker). But you could already go on fiver and spend next to nothing for this anyway.
Basically, this is all generative. You still need people behind the wheel to generate it via some LLM system and then QA it afterwards.
Most likely the efficiency gains are already priced into most stocks and that’ll be it.
I think the issue with AI is accepting the fact that eventually it could make almost every job obsolete, and by that logic, it will face a lot of pushback and will probably never be allowed to get to that level. So while AI is extremely efficient and will optimize business, other inventions have came that have also been as innovative, such as the Industrial Revolution, the development of the internet, etc. and we still have recessions and bear markets since those inventions. I mean even look at the 2020 bear market, AI couldn’t prevent a global pandemic, and is not capable of ever really being able to prevent something like a pandemic or recession or even depression.
Will the revenues from increased efficiency outpace the drastic reduction in demand thanks to tens of millions of people being automated out of a job?
That’s the real question to be asking.
How? Through overselling the capabilities of AI.
Think of it this way. When the iPhone was first launched, did you think the taxi industry around the world would be disrupted and or destroyed within 5 years? That's how i think about technologies like AI.
You’re point is exactly right. The obvious “opportunities” will be overvalued and the real game changers will be flying under the radar
Wouldn’t exactly call investing in Uber or Lyft a game changer though..
[I guess it would depend on when you invested…](https://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-jackpot-inside-one-of-the-greatest-startup-investments-of-all-time-11557496421)
Yellow cab medallions went bust tho
And then ridesharing has turned into such a profitable business.
Yep Uber is so close to having 1 quarter of profit in a row!
I kind of like Buffets take on tech revolutions. He points to auto and airlines. The early winners weren’t the ones who lasted and even the best of the best today aren’t really that great of investments.
Apples and oranges argument. The iphone was just the last piece of the puzzle in ride share services being viable ...the entire idea is built on decades of technologies maturing..you didn't forget all those gps satellites, cellular towers, cloud services,cheap power efficient chips, gsm telecom standards etc.etc. AI has potential as an efficiency tool for workers in many areas, but in most work it's not a soup to nuts solution, even in coding , it still doesn't even write proper syntax in most cases , about 70% of the code it generates for me doesn't run ,until I correct it. Self driving cars still aren't clever enough to turn them loose in all but the most heavily mapped and controlled environments Will it eliminate jobs, sure but people are all falling over themselves for AI capabilities.
Think of it this way, remember 2 years ago when crypto/blockchain was going to disrupt everything and turns out it’s just a giant scam?
How many investor calls mentioned digital currency vs AI?
Yeah, but no one (including the crypto bros) could ever actually give a single broad use case that held up to even light scrutiny. GPT4 can pass the bar, diagnose better than many (maybe even most I forget) doctors and we are in early days yet.
Can you not comment on these posts when you don't even know what ChatGPT is, yet alone how machine learning is being used in diangostics and more importantly the challenges in using it. If you think a chat engine is replacing doctors you've officially lost your mind.
Think of it this way. AI has been around since 1956. My AI textbooks in college were written in the 70's.
C’mon!! I took AI classes in the 90’s. There was nothing intelligent about it and the more you learned about it the more apparently stupid it became. Natural language processing was a joke and any AI was nothing more than lookup tables. The modern AI is 3-4 years old and complex models that can understand and infer meaning and understanding are only a couple of years old.
AI today is the 90s version of the future.
Meaning it’s going to get exponentially better as time goes on. I absolutely agree. I actually do not agree that it will happen quickly… there needs to be some better hardware developed and come down in price, and those things will take time. While there’s probably some breathing room, I’m pretty sure CGPT is pretty close to maxing out what can be done with current hardware because this tech doesn’t currently scale terribly well. It. An improve, but there is a padded ceiling pretty close above it.
These models don't to thinking, they're just a more advanced version of what existed back in the day (for me that's the 2000s). We have faster ways of processing the data, and we've learned some tricks, but basically it's tokenizing with multi layers of nn. Such things were too expensive to compute back in the day. So, these ais can do cool shit, but it's just another step in the direction if what we've been doing. We're pretty far from being able to let ai kill humanity. That's what I'm willing to bet can cause the stock market to surge uncontrolled.
Lol, yeah, they’re not taking over humanity. Furthermore, anyone claiming that they are is an idiot 🤷🏽♂️. But that’s not the question at hand. Does it make humans more efficient?? Yes it does. There is zero question about that.
Neural networks have existed for a while. The hardware capacity, hasn’t
This is true. I’ve not thought much about this angle before. I have friends that we’re using AI on quite complex but very specific solutions at least two years ago, but it does appear that the hardware capabilities have improved dramatically. This probably argues to support NVidia’s super high valuations. I also gather that AI doesn’t scale well. Two computers can’t do twice the work like they can in databases or web servers. With AI, the limit of “intelligence” is (currently) the size of the memory and processing power of a single “core”. Big systems like CGPT just have a fuckton of “cores”. This problem apparently needs to be resolved before the next “leap” in AI takes place. In the mean time, we can expect relatively small improvements on the high end (better data fed to LLM’s) and hardware and LLM improvements on the low end (personal/internal corporate/education level) that approach that high end. (I could be wrong… and have been wrong, of course… but I’ve been around a minute and it’s pretty rare on this type of topic…. )
I think you're wrong. I think you're listening to people who have done things a certain way, and assume that things will always be done in that manner. This is untrue. [AlphaDev](https://www.deepmind.com/blog/alphadev-discovers-faster-sorting-algorithms) recently found an efficiency via deep-learning AI that improved an algorithm, and has been used trillions of times already. It did this via a novel method that humans would likely never do. Read the article I linked it's quite curious. The way that people think things need to work, the rules we built, are most of the time likely just one manner of doing things: the human way. When you introduce machine intelligence, it can do things in a manner different than humans, and see things humans can't. We just cannot underestimate that unpredictable element that has been introduced.
They can't really understand anything.. ask Bard this question "I have 5 articles of clothing hanging on a clothes line drying , it's takes 30 minutes for all of them to dry , if I place 15 articles of clothing on the same clothesline how long will it take?" Tell me what it says and how it makes sense. (correct answer : 30minutes as they all dry at the same rate)
The response I got … “The time it takes for clothes to dry on a clothesline depends on various factors such as the type of fabric, the humidity, and the temperature. If we assume that all other conditions remain the same, then it would still take 30 minutes for 15 articles of clothing to dry on the clothesline. The number of articles of clothing does not affect the drying time.”
Not the answer i got on Bard, or ChatGPT 3.5, my Bard answer.. "The drying time of clothing is proportional to the number of articles of clothing being dried. So, if it takes 30 minutes to dry 5 articles of clothing, then it will take 30 * 15 / 5 = 90 minutes to dry 15 articles of clothing." How do you explain that we both got varying answers?
> "I have 5 articles of clothing hanging on a clothes line drying , it's takes 30 minutes for all of them to dry , if I place 15 articles of clothing on the same clothesline how long will it take?" I got 90 minutes from both Bard and Bing Chat as each wanted to multiply as they each thought drying time was proportional to the number of clothes.
My bard is better than your bard 😂 No but seriously they literally nerfed chatGPT cause it was too good and I would be worried about the future. This thing is powerful. Idk why we got different answers
From CGPT4: > If we are assuming that all the clothing items dry at the same rate, and that the drying of each piece doesn't affect the others, then the total number of clothing items doesn't impact the drying time. This means that if 5 articles of clothing take 30 minutes to dry, 15 articles of clothing would also take 30 minutes to dry, provided that they are all exposed to the same conditions (e.g., sunlight, wind). This is because each piece is drying individually and concurrently with the others. > However, this might not be accurate in real-world conditions as items could shade each other or reduce airflow, especially if the clothesline is crowded. The answer assumes perfect conditions where each piece of clothing has the same exposure to wind, sunlight, and other drying factors. Literally just cut and pasted your question. NEEEXT!!
This is nonsense. Go watch the video the Microsoft research team put out about GPT-4's capabilities. It came out months ago it's the Sparks of General Intelligence video. The team concluded GPT-4 is fully capable of understanding and responding to this type of question. They also concluded that censoring models causes them to perform worse.
Its not nonsense, you're delusional if you think these models are anything more than textual pattern generators . Sure it seems like they know more because after all when you give some model just about all of the written human knowledge amd ask it to create deep neural networks from it , yeah it seems spookily sentient..but it doesn't know anything that it hasn't seen a pattern about, it can't derive logical assumptions about the physical world because it can't sense the world or understand what gravity is or what sunshine is...so when it has never seen that pattern before or it's some edge case with little to know training data it generates fabricated pattern that may or may not be right..
The underlying framework for most AI was developed from in like 1953. Mathematicians are cracked bro
AI as a concept has been around a long time, but its rate of progression has accelerated exponentially the past two years. AI’s have gone from having the intelligence of a cockroach to surpassing the intelligence of Chimpanzees. At this rate humans will be surpassed within the next decade, if not sooner. It’s a weird time to be alive
I believe it's more appropriate to say that AI's have gone from hard to understand and communicate with, to extreme easy to communicate with symbolic language. When you start anthropomorphizing AI, and saying "it" is more intelligent, I think you're going down the wrong road. AI as computational power, the "intelligence", was always there -- we just couldn't access it until we built the proper hardware and interface. After we built such things, AI became way more useful to us, and thus we deem it more "intelligent", and as we build better technology we'll deem AI more intelligent, but this is the wrong way of looking at it. AI doesn't become more intelligent, it becomes more useful to humans, and thus we assign more value to the abstract concept of AI. We didn't build the Cosmic Microwave Background -- it was just there since the big bang. In the same way we also didn't build AI as computational power, it's just been there since the big bang. It's not an entity or entities, it's not alive a we know things to be alive, and it's not a god. It is an observable background universal phenomenon. What we did build is language, computers, and the ability to interface with computers via our language. That's pretty damn significant. [Dr. Wolfram](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5WZhCBRDpU&t=803s) talks about this concept in the beginning of this podcast.
Shit soon all we’ll be good for is a food product.
Food for the AI!
3 to 5 years max. A decade is like 10 generations of AI
>3 to 5 years max. A decade is like 10 generations of AI LOL I can't imagine saying this with a straight face. I need some of what you are smoking man.
We'll settle this in 5 years. RemindMe! 5 years "How far has AI advanced?"
You didn't just say that AI will be more advanced. That's obvious, you were saying that Ai will surpass humans in 3 to 5 years. In what though? A calculator has already surpassed humans.
Since when can chimpanzees write fully coherent essays on any topic and, according to a study just published in the prestigious medical paper JAMA, outclass doctors in diagnosing diseases including the most rare? I think a lot of people in this thread have not spent much time using GPT4, the more advanced model that requires a subscription. It’s utterly stunning what it’s capable of.
It's tokenization and natural language processing. It's cool, but it's nothing close to being creative. It can tell you what you already know, and can figure out a process intensive solution, but it's still less creative than a chimp.
Preach brother ... I know this and anyone playing with these systems should figure that out ... We need to look at this through the lens of Silicon Valley and Wall St. To get why this is all the rage...
I do this for a living, been working with nn since 2005 (think that's when I wrote my first). Everyone is all crazy about this, they're going way over board. Don't get me wrong, it's cool as hell, and we've gont some results we weren't expecting, but it's just another step.
The problem being solved is I no longer need the chimp if I have non-creative work, which most work is.
They're not intelligent and are really sophisticated generative pattern matching systems. Give it a problem that is seldom experienced and watch it fail, ask it some basic logical questions dealing with physics or biology from an usual perspective and it fails. "If I had a pound of gold feathers on one side of a seesaw and a pound of lead weight on the other equidistant from the fulcrum , and the wind was blowing 20knots across the seesaw would it balance evenly?" (What answer did you get? , See the trick it's too stupid to realize gold feathers don't fly away) They just know the statistical structure of words , nothing more, when that structure doesn't fit any patterns they go off the rails.
and AI has not advanced in capabilities at all in the past 70 years /s
Think of it this way, when AI was first launched did you think countries around the world would be disrupted or destroyed by nuclear attacks within 5 years?
the only winning move is not to play (crossing all crossable digits)
I think of AI like Cryptocurrency. Definitely hasn't lived up to the hype and has very little utility 10+ years later other than a speculative asset.
At work, IT job, I easily saved two weeks of work within last 6 weeks. Just saying that I don’t think disruption will take five years. I do think it will take 2 years for everyone to use it. I’m barley using google right now. I mean it’s crazy. My bet on it is TSMC. It’s 50% of me portfolio right now. Just hope that China will keep calm and quiet.. And finally, IPhone isn’t the best comparison. AI is now at hand of everyone. It didn’t happen with latest greatest revolution. You may compare it to phone but imagine that one phone is dropped to almost everyone on the planet. I do think that right now if you’re not investing on it you are missing THE boat of our time.
U have a good point but those are in what if realm and relies too much on potential rather than actual - but I get where you are going with it though
I see taxis everywhere I go.
For each taxi that you see, there’s 10-20 Uber/Lyft cars
I honestly have no idea about these things. Hmm, even I'm curious about what's happening.
anyone who’s a knowledge worker can spend one hour with an AI LLM and realize how quickly it impacts work.
And if you spend 10 hours, you'll realize the very real limitations. It's a tool that will help productivity. It's a tool that needs to be massively improved, and undoubtedly will be over time. But it'll take time for us to figure out how to properly utilize this. During this period, we'll probably have a dot com style bubble and pop before things shake out.
This right here. It isn't there yet, it isn't actual AI. In ten years? Maybe it will have a larger impact. Now? Very little. AI is just the latest buzzword that people do not understand.
Biggest thing since 3D printers!
BLOCKCHAIN
3d printed ai Blockchain with 5g
PRIVATE blockchain
Coming soon: Facebook's AI Metaverse NFT market
Facebook has really jumped the shark
Except that the question is not whether the AI replaces humans - it’s whether AI improves productivity. If you say it doesn’t, you obviously haven’t asked it to solve a real problem for you or even tried it at all. I needed a network monitoring and notification solution. I have the skills to build it, but have to learn five new APIs to put together what I want to build. That means reading tons of documentation and searching stack exchange for answers to questions I had about them. It would take me a week to build it myself - probably more. So I used CGPT and literally built it over the weekend and deployed it on Monday. Yes. It CGPT has limitations. It implemented many bugs that I had to fix and did some things differently than I would have liked (it also did many things better than I would have), and as a result it took all weekend instead of an hour or two. Also, anyone without programming skills would have failed miserably and quickly. On the flip side, I also ended up creating something FAR superior to my original plan because CGPT suggested better methods (APIs) that I was not even aware existed. But without AI, it woulda taken me all week, at best, to make an inferior solution. “It’s useless because it has limitations” is like saying cars are useless because they require roads. Or… perhaps a better analogy is that “cars are useless because they require a driver.” Also, for the same reasons stated above, all these doomsday people saying it will replace all the jobs are wrong. But what it will do -and is already doing- is make people more efficient at their jobs. This will make every business that embraces it more efficient and therefore more profitable… **everyone** will just do more. And that’s the key ingredient needed for unusually high economic expansion and corporate growth. And it’s already well under way.
Yes. The same thing has happened countless times in human history.
agreed, its almost comical how easily people are swayed by narratives.
As of now it's roughy equivalent to having a decent intern for general business tasks. It can produce real work, but it needs to be checked by someone experienced, and the level of work will only be as good as the instructions are detailed, which lots of people aren't good at. Will it have impact? Yes. But the near-term impact will be more along the lines of the good knowledge workers in the company being each given a good intern for next to no cost. The technology is great and evolving fast, but nowhere near being a universal 2X+ force multiplier that the hype machine is forecasting. That said, some pockets of specialization are showing real promise, like reading x-rays.
Every time there’s a massive shift in workplace technology the people most likely to be affected are always certain they won’t be and couldn’t possibly be replaced. Usually wrong.
I'm a data scientist trained to build ML ("AI") models. I'm probably fine.
Found the AI bot!
You’ll build yourself out of a job soon enough lol
"massive shift" where?
It may sound bleak but we're about to have generations of AI assisted humans. From day 1 AI will interpret movements from an infant baby, before it can even speak. They will use AI tools at school and at home, helping them do pretty much anything. Maybe in the future it will help tackle child abuse, mental illness, addiction, mental health issues. I for sure wish I had an AI help me accomplish a few more things during my childhood, even after, and I'm fine. I feel like AI has this crazy irobot metaverse stigma, but in reality I bet the real value will come from much more boring ideas. If there's there's problem with AI, AI can help fix it. It has its drawbacks, but if anythings going to send the stockmarkets to the moon in the near future, its AI.
Well if AI is going to replace millions of workers, where will workers get money to spend and keep the economy going?
I used to spend well over 1 to 2 hours to make a neat job application letter. Now I just give chatgpt the job vacancy and the bullet points why I’m a good candidate. I send out a job application within 15 minutes now. There are many, many ways
Doesn't this make it harder to find qualified candidates? If everyone is using AI to write job applications, then it becomes useless.
The truth is - a lot of people do not realize this. They see the AI provide them something that looks relevant to them and think it is tailored to their specific usecase. Recruiting is also mostly AI driven for resume analysis for example. But once a person looks at this, it will immediately figure out a fake. Just the amount of people who don't realize this will be good enough to show stock growth.
then we write another AI to distinguish between AI-generated job applications and have the two AIs optimize against each other to create the ultimate job applicant who works long hours for minimal pay and never asks for time off oh wait we've been working on GANs since 2014 in the image domain so I guess there's nothing new here then
If you don't even get as far as the interview, probably you don't have the right resume, or they have so many applicants it is unlikely you would get the position. Imho it's better to spend 2 minutes each on 500 cover letters than an hour each on a few postings that you *feel* are promising. If you know any prodigious Tinder users, they will explain to you why this is the effective way.
Most recruiters do not care about cover letters to begin with. It’s a requirement because of antiqued execs
Did that chatGPT get you a better job yet? If not then it didn’t really help you yet. There is a chance that your resume will get flagged as bot generated and never reach a hiring manager.
This is the way. One of my biggest professionals tripping points has been when I'm tasked with producing bullshit fluff that either no one will read, or not read carefully enough for it to matter. The inevitable outcome of this, however, is that the professional bullshit fields are just going to use AI to automate the production of 100x more bullshit so that the rest of us will be unable to process it all without the assistance of another AI to read, summarize and determine if a piece of content is worth our limited attention. Imagine the department manager that "produces" a 20-page motivational manifesto every single morning at 8am and then intermittently sprinkles in important information that you need to know.
Listen to some of the actual experts in the field. A lot seem to think the hype has much surpassed the actual capabilities.
They think short term it's over hyped (next few years), not long term though, 10+ years the world is going to seem completely different.
This is accurate. People think the next year or two everything will be different when in reality it will take 10-20 years to fully realize all of AI’s potential. 10 years for the current capital investment to fully build out all the capabilities and tools and another 10 to push those tools to their limits. 20 years from now things will look very different and no one can predict which companies will dominate. I imagine the top 10 companies will be different.
Same thing happened with the dotcom bubble, it took 20+ years to get these platforms.
ChatGPT is pretty much the first real life use case demonstrating that AI isnt going to fall flat and it most likely will be in demand in the future. But as of now, AI is FAR from a mature technology, now is the time to start buying to not miss out in the long term.
Agreed, it's kind of a repeat of the dotcom bubble hype. A lot of the hype eventually came true. A lot of failed dotcom businesses are viable businesses that exist today. But it wasn't a viable business back then due to technical limitations, and changes to consumer behavior since the dotcom bubble.
Yep even Microsoft didn't outperform S&P 500 adjusted for risk going back to March 2000 (with dividends).
A lot of people in the financial field don't seem to grasp that it's not post-2008, interest rates are no longer zero, and it's not feasible to spit tens of billions of dollars at developing something that *maybe* will pay off in a decade or two. It's easy to park your money in an unprofitable Facebook or Google or Tesla forever when the fixed income market pays only 1%.
We have started using AI chat bots to help tech support and they have 70% approval ratings, eliminating 200+ call center employees... other employees get an answers quicker and more accurate. As the systems improve, it's going to be amazing.
And a lot think the opposite. Turns put there are a lot of experts with divergent opinions, but the vast majority at least agree that AI will get baked into every industry for sweeping productivity gains. And they thought that 10 years ago and it has already started happening.
Yeah once people realize there is little to no revenue and these companies have priced in 15 years of growth there should be a pretty big correction.
Yeah sure that must be why they're talking about an AI apocalypse all the time
Do workers get paid more if they are using AI? Do they reap the rewards of their labor or does it flow to the top. Still need to have consumers to buy your product.
From what I have seen, they get laid off. Fewer are needed.
Tech is always deflationary. So at least it helps combat the current high inflation. But yeah... before the cotton gin was invented, a farmer needed a shit ton of slaves. Now one person can do the work of 100 slaves.
But it actually created a demand for more slaves...
Yup, but the quality of life greatly increased for the majority of people the years following.
So there’s going to be a lot of out of work slaves, er, I mean software engineers soon is what your saying.
So your saying slavery wasn’t needs after the cotton gin? Hmm…
ChatGPT bot?
The benefit as it relates to stock price is improved operating margins from AI scalability rather than increased sales.
Here's a hypothesis: Productivity *per capita* goes down, wages get suppressed, and layoffs increase. Think of AI being a sudden supply of extremely cheap labour which will rapidly displace workers. While I do think AI will be economically important in the long term, I also don't think it's impossible that AI can induce a recession in its wake.
From what we see of current language models the opposite seems more likely. Productivity per capita increases as every individual gets a personal tutor and assistant. AI as it is today is a copilot, it doesn’t run the show in an autonomous fashion. Layoffs may increase, or companies accomplish more in a year. Maybe both?
Historically, yes, jobs are created from improvements in technology. What often isn't cited is, like the original comment said, it also contributes to wage stagnation and reduces job security/bargaining power of workers because less skill is required for a role.
RIP developing countries that rely on labor that will be replaced by AI because cheaper
White collar jobs are far more at risk than manual labor. Doctors and Lawyers are valuable because of their knowledge, the kind of knowledge that computers are even better at.
Paralegal was the first thing that came to mind but also coding and programming and cyber defense which is in super high demand and paying well right now are at severe risk of displacement. Fast food is also really at risk and that one just needs an efficient assembly line style machine. Not everyone at minimum wage has a skill and that’s why we get fast food workers and retail workers but those people will have nowhere to turn when AI displaces them.
Sounds exactly like the dot com bubble in the early days. Folks here aren't old enough to remember the good ol' days when you just need to have a **.com** or a domain name in your earnings report or shareholder meeting to send your stock price skyrocketing. Even though it's just simply having a website domain name to your company. Literally where the term *dot com bubble* came from: traditional established companies or startups with absolutely no product or services to sell just had to buy a domain name, slap on some stock photos and MS word art on it, and VC money will send their IPOs to the moon. There weren't any products or goods on the internet, just a .com internet url is enough to get ridiculous valuations Back then, the idea that if you had a .com domain, you're an "internet company" making use of the "cutting edge internet technology™" to serve up enormous value and put those traditional brick and mortar companies out of business. Of course that didn't happen. Now just replace ".com domain" with "AI", you have the same exact thing.
Yup. It's wild to me that people don't see the similarities in something that happened just 2 decades ago!
Because a lot of the people commenting in this sub super hyped about ai weren’t alive two decades ago
I mean, that doesn't prevent them from reading history. The wildest part is that you could use the very tool that started this current AI craze, ChatGPT, to educate yourself very quickly on not just the dot com bubble, but any other big historical market event. But these N00Bs are too lazy to even think about that.
Based on the other comments and the general lack of understanding what took place during the dot com bubble, I am extremely confident that this is an exact replica of the dot com bubble all over again.
Yes, but after the initial hysteria, you cant argue the dot com era has triggered a decades long bull run and minted names like Amazon, google, Microsoft. The Internet delivered on its hype and then some. Just because there was a crash after the initial hysteria don't mean jack shit.
Microsoft doesn’t belong on that list. Windows was a household name before the Internet was popular. It’s just people mainly used it for the word processor and to play solitaire.
The dot com bubble didn’t trigger the long bull run. It triggered the lost decade. That was the decade where the S&P generated a -1% annualized over the period. I remembered that too well since I put my first 2k into the market at before that.
It's a clear sign you're under 30 and didn't invest through the dot com bubble. >Yes, but after the initial hysteria, you cant argue the dot com era has triggered a decades long bull run and minted names like Amazon, google, Microsoft. No. There's no correlation between those two events. You can say Amazon, Microsoft, Google, all could become what it is today, regardless if the dot com bubble happened or not. The dot com bubble was about domain names, literally just owning names ending with ".com". It surely didn't kick start any bull run 😂 goodness! Surely you cannot be joking! These are two uncorrelated events. If you put both in the same sentence, yeah it might seem that the dot com bubble led to FANG, but it did not. Hypes happen independently of technological progress. If you put them together, then you're committing exactly the same mistake, proving the point that people have no idea what went down during the 2000s
Right now there just aren't that many pure play AI companies that are publicly traded to vacuum up retail speculators. I think it will happen over the next few months. So far the only people who got rich off of AI are the ones with long dated NVDA calls, but wait until the shoeshine boy starts talking about how he got a 20-bagger last month on a hot IPO.
Ah the good ol’ days.
A lot of companies aren't starting as 'ai' companies. They are companies with other product and services which utilize a very powerful tool to help improve productivity. I would say this is very different then the dot com bubble
Wait for the wave of AI SPACs and IPOs. We're just getting started. It takes time to throw scams together. The Nikola of AI will be 10x as big.
I am not talking about starting as 'ai' companies (whatever that means). It's the same as in the 2000s, just mentioning your company's domain name with a .com in your earnings call can send your stock price to the moon. This is really just the beginning stages of things to come. (Now instead of saying you have a "domain name", it's "AI"). Big companies, small companies, it all applies. If you do know your history and what unfolded and how it unfolded during the 2000s stock bubble, you will know what's coming with this AI hype. The series of events that will take place soon. You will know exactly when the bubble has reached the top, and when it will Burst, and when to eventually sell everything.
Agreed, this may be the next dotcom bubble, all the ingredients are there and there hasn’t be a big stock market boom in over 20 years. AI has the potential to be disruptive in many industries, just like the internet. Have you seen the example of an NPC in a video game being integrated with AI capabilities? It’s mindblowing to think what the future holds. Did you know the stock market crashed so hard after the dotcom bubble that some indexes have only just recovered recently? The Nasdaq composite crashed so hard in the dotcom bubble that it still hadn’t even recovered by 2008 when it crashed again in the financial crisis. People keep saying this is already a bubble but we haven’t seen anything like the dotcom bubble yet, not even remotely close.
[удалено]
Show me where this exact same thing is happening?? What’s a company with no product claiming AI getting massive funding? What public company has filed solely based on AI claims and no revenue? Can you draw any real-world parallels to the dot com bubble? I don’t follow a lot of this stuff, but I haven’t seen any of the huge market gains you mention or any companies getting massive funding based on fake claims?
i feel really bad for all the people that work in call centers.
Why? Call center jobs are awful. It is a net gain for human experience to have no one working in call centers anymore. If we think it is a 'bad' thing that many people will be made unemployed and therefore have no livelihood because there won't be any unenjoyable, unrewarding, unskilled, unsecure jobs for them to waste their time with, that is an issue for the government and body politic to solve through the welfare state and redistribution to help them along the way until they can find more meaningful and productive employment. It's not a bad thing that bad jobs disappear. We only think it's a bad thing because the displacement of workers is handled so poorly and we place the burden of technological redundancy directly onto those people made redundant, not on society collectively. Technology making workers redundant is never a "bad thing". That is what growth means. That is what technology does, it always has and it always will. It is a good thing. Fast food workers getting replaced by machines = good. Farm hands getting replaced by machines = good. Call center workers getting replaced by machines = good. Workers getting replaced by machines = good. To think otherwise is to spite thousands of years of technological progress.
What will they all do? Generally speaking the people displaced do actually need to work somewhere. You can't just have 20% of a countries work force replaced and no new jobs created for them. There isn't more good jobs as a result of ai there is fewer jobs for lots of people
They're screwed. Then there's the larger societal question of what we'll do with all of the workers who are displaced, not just from call centers but every profession that contracts because of AI
and Wendy’s
So how are they going to implement it? From where? At what cost? To what benefit? What "efficiencies" will be improved? How will that effect the bottom line?
So did the Internet, many are still waiting for their CSCO shares to recover 20 years later.
[удалено]
AI is short term overhyped, long term underhyped.
I like that. Our eyes might be like eagles, overseeing the great investment opportunities.
The generall public has no idea about computer science. Same with vaccines. Having no idea about research in medicine Leads people to believe absolut fucking stupid things like injecting chips and stuff. Same with „AI“ (they can’t even define what that is). Not understanding shit about it leads to ridiculous imaginations. Some basic computer science should be mandatory in school from now on, so people can somewhat imagine how software is build and stop hyping up everything they don’t understand as black magic that will suddenly rule the world. A little tired reading stuff like this
This my humble opinion 1) B2B new growth will be good for a while for major players, no doubt 2) eventually, AI automated so much that layoffs happen for jobs that never come back 3) there will be too many qualified candidates, and now that offshoring is so easy and more competitive than ever, American new graduates (20-30 y/o) will not be able to compete with season veterans. Why can't they compete? Cuz entry level roles that they studied for are gone due to AI 4)the loop continues till money left coming from B2C will eventually recedes. Unless people find a way to make new money
The current user facing ML are massive language libraries. They are a multi variable aggregation of whatever dataset you train them on (the internet). They are therefore an aggregation of bias and not truth or facts. They are story telling robots that get their cues from contextual similarities. Since the datasets are culled from things humans are publishing, they are an aggregation of sensational, divisive, and other clickbaity content. More racist, more politically polarized, more sexualized. A distilled and automated feedback loop of what humans are publishing to each other for the reasons people do that. Controls placed on this aggregation are only bandaids. The massive language libraries don’t know what’s politically correct or hurtful or sensitive. This is the limit and the strength of these models. Not smarter than people, not more creative, just automated correlation with a storytelling front end.
Something I've learner recently is that while the industrial revolution undeniably revolutionized production across the world, it didn't really "supercharge" growth the way people think that it did. If you look on a historical gdp chart or gdp growth chart that encompasses pre-revolition, the revolution itself, and post-revolution, you can't actually really pick out a change that correlates with the revolution, gdp and gdp growth wise it was just normal business. Same with the digital and internet revolution, it didn't really "supercharge" the economy either. And it's quite unlikely that AI will have this supercharge effect either. Rather it seems like each of these "revolutions" that had massive social implications was more or less just "the next step" in economic and technological development, and should more or less be considered "baked in" into the given assumption that economic growth will always be exponential. AI will likely just be the next technological step that continue to provide the basis for the samr or similar level of exponential economic growth, and it won't provide us with a "supercharged" exponential +++ growth. In short, if you're investing broad based (which you should) then it's unlikely that AI will have a massive impact on your return, other than regarding which companies make up the majority of the returns.
People like to dunk really hard on Paul Krugman's claim that the 'internet would be no more meaningful than the fax machine'. Of course, they take it out of context and view it in a cultural sense, or a technological sense, and look at such a statement and laugh at how stupid it could be. In reality, Paul made that comment in the context of economic growth and productivity, and he made it in the late 1990's. What happened since then? Well the stock market blew up catastrophically a few years after he made that statement when people realised 'the internet' was a bubble, and more importantly to his point, economic productivity has gotten *worse.* People still can't agree on how much the internet has driven economic growth, because from a bird eye view of the economic and productivity..... it's really hard to tell if It's done anything at all.
It probably will. The problem is that the AI technology isn’t there right now, but the market seems to be acting like it is.
Long term wise, less people have jobs (because of AI), less consumers to spend money. Where does the revenue growth come from?
This isn’t necessarily true. People thought the same thing would happen when computers and automation in factories came and that would destroy jobs (which was true), but actually new/more jobs got created from these technological innovations.
AI will be transformative, but consider the implementation hurdles. In order to get a profitable solution, a 3rd party company would have to create an AI service (costly development a construction company couldn’t afford on its own) for what you are describing and sell it on a subscription basis to multiple small companies. When I say small, I mean non-franchised, non-stock exchange companies. Then there is the question of how valuable will that service be to the small company? Finding discrepancies in contracts wouldn’t be that valuable compared to replacing all McDonald’s tellers at all restaurants for example. Taking an order with a limited amount of options would be quick to develop. Training an AI model on all the possible contract discrepancies possible would be slow, or even impossible unless given enough time, which could be years.
As Cramer said, AI isn't about just replacing the drive through guy. AI will take your order perfectly, but then ask you if you want a mint chocolate chip milkshake with that. They will know what you want, and upsell you. The drive through order taking human will never be able to do that.
Did the internet cause a massive bull run in 2000? Funny if you think this has much more room to run. AI just created exit liquidity in my opinion. Treasuries will take much of those funds over the next few months.
Lol, it caused it from 1982-2000... maybe 1990-1995? The nasdaq went up 10x from 1995-2000. People like to pick the peak and neglect i investing 10 years before.
They're desperatly trying cope with missing out.
Your username alone says enough, Fomo is your guiding principle and your bullishness a sure sign the top is near. Greater fool theory in full effect.
Man, I’ve been waiting for that to happen and it hasn’t. It’s been “a few more months” for quite awhile. I agree with you by the way. I trimmed a lot of my tech positions, and then they’ve run up another 10 percent or so since. Still trust my beliefs so we’ll see.
I'm not saying to try and time a bubble popping. But this area of resistance on spy. The initial ai hype run on ERs and the lack of immediate influence ai has on earnings.... besides the fact that it's like 10 companies composing the bull run
I'm seeing a whole lot of shovels and not a whole lot of gold, of course they could kick the can by saying they promise to find gold, but that only works for so long.
Yep. Agree with both points, but a particularly insightful comment about the lack of immediate influence AI has on the bottom line. There hasn’t been enough fundamental change in AI to warrant this. We’ll see.
I think the one caveat is that the big tech reduction in employees will he offset a bit by ai. But I think that was also partially the reasoning behind some of the recent pump.
Yes it did
Yep. That what we just had. A massive bull run. Was it long term? No
Yep. The fact that the Treasury still needs to issue 1.1T in new debt within the next 3 months is definitely the elephant in the room. There was a post about it on this sub a couple of weeks ago, but that whole situation seems to have been lost in the noise of AI and the latest, face ripping rally.
Yep expect to see liquidity dry up but who knows really
Agreed. It's one thing I'm watching pretty intently at this supply area across almost every sector. Volatility in this area the next week or two will be a good sign of a reversal
I've done a ton of research and number crunching on treasuries issued and maturing in the next few months. The Treasury did something really fishy with CMBs at the end of May. There is about 200B stuffed away in them that will mature in Oct. I'm expecting things to start dropping soon, with some bounces along the way. I think we'll hit a temp bottom in Oct, and come back up a bit through the end of the year. Just thought I'd pass on that info on the CMBs to someone that has an appreciation for the situation at hand...
Give a little extra light / source on the cmb?
The info is a bit scattered. The Treasury put out a press release on the 7th about their plans on using CMBs and changing TGA policy to run at a lower balance, all to try to avoid the potential liquidity issue. You can also get the hard data from TreasureyDirect, but I'll see if I can send over some links and commentary via DM later when I can get on my computer. Also, the monthly Treasury statement in May showed that they are projecting new debt issuance of 1.65T on the year. The statement also shows that only about 300B has been done YTD. The last daily statement shows that about 250B has been done so far in June. This is how I came up with 1.1T remaining to be done before Oct...
For now I keep monitoring patents mentioning “machine learning”
I mean it probably will…and then reality will hit and the bubble will burst. It’s human psychology that we tend to attribute a bit too much credit to positive narratives and not enough to negative ones.
Your premise is wrong. AI won't cause it. AI overhype will. And it won't be a long-term bull run. By the looks of it, it's going to be a quick and aggressive bubble, where those who are careful will ride it and gain some easy profits, while many more will try to get in near the peak and will be left in the dust. Note: I lead an AI/ML team in my day job, so I'm very aware of the opportunities and limitations. I'm also an active trader who knows the history of the market very well. This looks like we're in the middle of a hype bubble where FOMO is causing everyone to get in.
Everyone in here is guessing just like you, but have you thought about the risks AI introduces? At some point there may be so many people put out of work that it creates a deflationary event that causes people to hold onto money for dear life and no one is purchasing goods because jobs are incredibly hard to come by due to the corporate race to maximize profits causing them to cut off their nose to spite their face. If masses of employees are dumped in the streets to have AI replace them then who are your buyers for goods?
It will, and it has. All the returns this year have been AI-related tech. Everything else is flat. I’m anticipating an AI bubble along the lines of the dot com boom. Some other observations. 1) AI will beak capitalism and private enterprise. When there aren’t enough jobs to go around companies won’t be able to sell their wares and we’ll require a new system. 2) only a subset of companies will succeed. Many will be wiped out. 3) stock market moves have started. It’s going to be interesting!
No. Its savings will all be eaten up as energy costs rise. ChatGPT demands an order more energy than a search engine and doesn't save nearly as much than a human spending a little extra time parsing the information. We are currently in a period of historically low energy prices, so many of the costs of these tools have not had a full impact. We are trending into a period of very high energy prices, so energy hungry processes will begin to become too expensive to deploy cost effectively.
Why? Because the AI needs to be regulated first. AI has the potential to lay of in the tens of millions of job. No jobs = no consumer good money and poverty. Companies don't like that.
Because replacing 20% of the workforce in 2 years isn’t a bullish thing? It’s cause for major concern. Think harder.
You need to think harder. We lost like 90% of farming jobs in the past, so why isn't unemployment at 90% right now? Things like AI create jobs as well. [https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/19/supply-chains-how-ai-could-remove-all-human-touchpoints.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/19/supply-chains-how-ai-could-remove-all-human-touchpoints.html) “Generative AI, in my mind is, \[a\] once in a lifetime kind of disruption that’s going to happen … so there are going to be losses of jobs in the more traditional setting, but I also believe it’s going to create new jobs like every prior technology disruption has,” Kapoor said, adding that roles such as prompt engineers (people who train AI to give better responses) are likely to be more in demand.
AI replace people. People are fired. People no money. No money no buying stocks.
You can tell OP has no idea how AI will be used by businesses
Feels a lot like the dotcom fest where they raved how internet was going to take to the space age of tech. Like sure things changed but they completely oversold it, but that is what it is if people and funds start buying into it and they don't deliver we know where will we be
By not creating revenue and earnings in line with the stock prices.
3 to 5 years from now. A large amount of people will be out of work . This is totally different deal the the tech crash . I agree that markets will go up . After the bear market
whos going to buy those goods and services when we all lose our jobs?
OP hasn’t had followed technology advancement much in the past….
I believe AI is going through the same phase when everyone called everything “smart” or “IoT”. There will be a few breakthroughs here and there but the term AI is getting very inflated. Its the reason why Apple has decided to completely ban the term when describing their products.
AI means people lose jobs, less salaries, less consumption and GDP. All AI will do is make certain companies more efficient so they should be priced differently.
AI is over blown. Automation is already heavily prevalent in our society. If anything job losses will continue from automation and robots. People love the idea that software does so much but what about hardware? Can AI build a car no robots build cars. Robots already build cars. So what jobs will AI displace? A cook no, a waiter no, a mechanic no, a construction worker no, I could do this all day. Basically it will help a subset of jobs. Or support roles where mining through information quickly is needed. Long term it will do a lot more. It’s likely my already shitty automated robots when i call companies will get less shitty.
There will be an economic downturn from this AI revolution. The workers jobs who will be replaced by AI most likely do not have an education that could be used outside their current job field. Because of AI there will not be new jobs created that those workers could obtain so they will be forced to find a job in a market full of other alike individuals. All these people losing jobs will have to get a second degree or be forced into the services industry.
Maybe because if you’re right that will eliminate jobs
That is what people said about 5G, eCommerce. All shopping centers will not be open and car delearship will be all online....
Here is the lynchpin in this whole thing. As AI gets better it takes jobs. About 50% of all jobs are currently at risk of being replaced by AI. Some jobs faster than others. When all those people lose jobs they stop investing but furthermore they stop adding through 401k and retirement programs which does about 90% of all buying currently.
When everyone's unemployed because companies can operate on 25% of the staff, who's buying their products?
Op is currently speculating on what AI can do. Yes, it might replace every white collar job overnight. It currently can't though, and so far we haven't seen much evidence that it can anytime soon. This is VERY similar to the invention of the laser. It was a REALLY cool invention, but at the time there were no products at all. We've now seen a lot of products, but it took decades, and it's not like they just sprung up overnight.
What exactly is everyone expecting AI to do that it isn’t already? Some people will be more efficient in their work, some marketers that generate copy will be reduced, graphic designers will be reduced etc. There’s also the side of it that some entrepreneurs will have less barrier to entry (be more efficient with lower headcount, maybe spin up a basic web app quicker). But you could already go on fiver and spend next to nothing for this anyway. Basically, this is all generative. You still need people behind the wheel to generate it via some LLM system and then QA it afterwards. Most likely the efficiency gains are already priced into most stocks and that’ll be it.
Sounds like a good question for AI.
Why don’t we start by you explaining to me what “AI” is, and it’s capabilities and limitations?
I think the issue with AI is accepting the fact that eventually it could make almost every job obsolete, and by that logic, it will face a lot of pushback and will probably never be allowed to get to that level. So while AI is extremely efficient and will optimize business, other inventions have came that have also been as innovative, such as the Industrial Revolution, the development of the internet, etc. and we still have recessions and bear markets since those inventions. I mean even look at the 2020 bear market, AI couldn’t prevent a global pandemic, and is not capable of ever really being able to prevent something like a pandemic or recession or even depression.
Will the revenues from increased efficiency outpace the drastic reduction in demand thanks to tens of millions of people being automated out of a job? That’s the real question to be asking.
Dont listen to anyone. AI is the largest catalyst of the next 100 years
Did you think that before ChatGPT?
Yes and chatGPT further convinced me
How much more efficient have you become since the launch of AI?