this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2025
611 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

66892 readers
5069 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 12 points 11 hours ago

There are some nice things I have done with AI tools, but I do have to wonder if the amount of money poured into it justifies the result.

[–] TommySoda@lemmy.world 53 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (2 children)

Technology in most cases progresses on a logarithmic scale when innovation isn't prioritized. We've basically reached the plateau of what LLMs can currently do without a breakthrough. They could absorb all the information on the internet and not even come close to what they say it is. These days we're in the "bells and whistles" phase where they add unnecessary bullshit to make it seem new like adding 5 cameras to a phone or adding touchscreens to cars. Things that make something seem fancy by slapping buzzwords and features nobody needs without needing to actually change anything but bump up the price.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 12 points 11 hours ago

It's because customers don't want it or care for it, it's only the corporations themselves are obsessed with it

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 100 points 17 hours ago (4 children)

Optimizing AI performance by “scaling” is lazy and wasteful.

Reminds me of back in the early 2000s when someone would say don’t worry about performance, GHz will always go up.

[–] PixelatedSaturn@lemmy.world 24 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Thing is, same as with GHz, you have to do it as much as you can until the gains get too small. You do that, then you move on to the next optimization. Like ai has and is now optimizing test time compute, token quality, and other areas.

[–] Speculater@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago

To be fair, GHz did go up. Granted, it's not why modern processors are faster and more efficient.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] tonytins@pawb.social 85 points 17 hours ago (32 children)

They're throwing billions upon billions into a technology with extremely limited use cases and a novelty, at best. My god, even drones fared better in the long run.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 70 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

I mean it's pretty clear they're desperate to cut human workers out of the picture so they don't have to pay employees that need things like emotional support, food, and sleep.

They want a workslave that never demands better conditions, that's it. That's the play. Period.

[–] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 13 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

And the tragedy of the whole situation is that they can‘t win because if every worker is replaced by an algorithm or a robot then who‘s going to buy your products? Nobody has money because nobody has a job. And so the economy will shift to producing war machines that fight each other for territory to build more war machine factories until you can’t expand anymore for one reason or another. Then the entire system will collapse like the Roman Empire and we start from scratch.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TommySoda@lemmy.world 24 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (2 children)

If this is their way of making AI, with brute forcing the technology without innovation, AI will probably cost more for these companies to maintain infrastructure than just hiring people. These AI companies are already not making a lot of money for how much they cost to maintain. And unless they charge companies millions of dollars just to be able to use their services they will never make a profit. And since companies are trying to use AI to replace the millions they spend on employees it seems kinda pointless if they aren't willing to prioritize efficiency.

It's basically the same argument they have with people. They don't wanna treat people like actual humans because it costs too much, yet letting them love happy lives makes them more efficient workers. Whereas now they don't want to spend money to make AI more efficient, yet increasing efficiency would make them less expensive to run. It's the never ending cycle of cutting corners only to eventually make less money than you would have if you did things the right way.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

Absolutely. It's maddening that I've had to go from "maybe we should make society better somewhat" in my twenties to "if we're gonna do capitalism, can we do it how it actually works instead of doing it stupid?" in my forties.

[–] z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml 9 points 14 hours ago

The oligarchs running these companies have suffered a psychotic break. What the cause exactly is I don't know, but the game theyre playing is a lot less about profits now. They care about control and power over people.

I theorize it has to do with desperation over what they see as an inevitable collapse of the United States and they are hedging their bets on holding onto the reigns of power for as long as possible until they can fuck off to their respective bunkers while the rest of humanity eats itself.

Then, when things settle they can peak their heads out of their hidie holes and start their new Utopian civilization or whatever.

Whatever's going on, profits are not the focus right now. They are grasping at ways to control the masses...and failing pretty miserably I might add...though something tells me that scarcely matters to them.

load more comments (31 replies)
[–] LostXOR@fedia.io 31 points 16 hours ago (8 children)

I liked generative AI more when it was just a funny novelty and not being advertised to everyone under the false pretenses of being smart and useful. Its architecture is incompatible with actual intelligence, and anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves. (It does make an alright autocomplete though).

[–] devfuuu@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago

Like all the previous bubbles of scam that were kinda interesting or fun for novelty and once money came pouring in became absolut chaos and maddening.

[–] sheridan@lemmy.world 12 points 16 hours ago

The peak of AI for me was generating images Muppet versions of the Breaking Bad cast; it's been downhill since.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 12 points 15 hours ago

Pump and dump. That’s how the rich get richer.

[–] pixxelkick@lemmy.world 11 points 15 hours ago (4 children)

Meanwhile a huge chunk of the software industry is now heavily using this "dead end" technology 👀

I work in a pretty massive tech company (think, the type that frequently acquires other smaller ones and absorbs them)

Everyone I know here is using it. A lot.

However my company also has tonnes of dedicated sessions and paid time to instruct it's employees on how to use it well, and to get good value out of it, abd the pitfalls it can have

So yeah turns out if you teach your employees how to use a tool, they start using it.

I'd say LLMs have made me about 3x as efficient or so at my job.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 36 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (2 children)

Your labor before they had LLMs helped pay for the LLMs. If you're 3x more efficient and not also getting 3x more time off for the labor you put in previously for your bosses to afford the LLMs you got ripped off my dude.

If you're working the same amount and not getting more time to cool your heels, maybe, just maybe, your own labor was exploited and used against you. Hyping how much harder you can work just makes you sound like a bitch.

Real "tread on me harder, daddy!" vibes all throughout this thread. Meanwhile your CEO is buying another yacht.

[–] pixxelkick@lemmy.world 19 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (5 children)

I am indeed getting more time off for PD

We delivered on a project 2 weeks ahead of schedule so we were given raises, I got a promotion, and we were given 2 weeks to just do some chill PD at our own discretion as a reward. All paid on the clock.

Some companies are indeed pretty cool about it.

I was asked to give some demos and do some chats with folks to spread info on how we had such success, and they were pretty fond of my methodology.

At its core delivering faster does translate to getting bigger bonuses and kickbacks at my company, so yeah there's actual financial incentive for me to perform way better.

You also are ignoring the stress thing. If I can work 3x better, I can also just deliver in almost the same time, but spend all that freed up time instead focusing on quality, polishing the product up, documentation, double checking my work, testing, etc.

Instead of scraping past the deadline by the skin of our teeth, we hit the deadline with a week or 2 to spare and spent a buncha extra time going over everything with a fine tooth comb twice to make sure we didn't miss anything.

And instead of mad rushing 8 hours straight, it's just generally more casual. I can take it slower and do the same work but just in a less stressed out way. So I'm literally just physically working less hard, I feel happier, and overall my mood is way better, and I have way more energy.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 14 hours ago

I will say that I am genuinely glad to hear your business is giving you breaks instead of breaking your backs.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] andallthat@lemmy.world 16 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (5 children)

It's not that LLMs aren't useful as they are. The problem is that they won't stay as they are today, because they are too expensive. There are two ways for this to go (or an eventual combination of both:

  • Investors believe LLMs are going to get better and they keep pouring money into "AI" companies, allowing them to operate at a loss for longer That's tied to the promise of an actual "intelligence" emerging out of a statistical model.

  • Investments stop pouring in, the bubble bursts and companies need to make money out of LLMs in their current state. To do that, they need to massively cut costs and monetize. I believe that's called enshttificarion.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] nectar45@lemmy.zip 14 points 16 hours ago (4 children)

Imo our current version of ai are too generalized, we add so much information into the ai to make them good at everything it all mixes together into a single grey halucinating slop that the ai ends up being good at nothing.

We need to find ways to specialize ai and give said ai a more consistent and concrete personality to move forward.

[–] nectar45@lemmy.zip 18 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

Imo to make an ai that is truly good at everything we need to have multiple ai all designed to do something different all working together (like the human brain works) instead of making every single ai a personality-less sludge of jack of all trades master of none

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›