I have noticed in just the past two weeks or so, a lot of the naysayers have changed their tunes. I expect over the next 2 months there will be another sea change as the network effect and new frameworks kick in.
No. If anything we are getting "new" models but hardly any improvements. Things are "improving" on scores, ranking and whatever other metrics the AI industry has invented but nothing is really materializing in real work.
I think we have crossed the chasm and the pragmatists have adopted these tools because they are actually useful now. They've thrown out a lot of their previously held principles and norms to do so and I doubt the more conservative crowd will be so quick to compromise.
2 years sounds more likely than 2 months since the established norms and practices need to mature a lot more than this to be worthy of the serious consideration of the considerably serious.
I'd say that it's probably not a play against open source, but more trying to remove/change the bottlenecks in the current chip production cycle. Nvidia likely doesn't care who wins, they just want to sell their chips. They literally can't make enough to meet current demand. If they split off the inference business (and now own one of the only purchasable alternatives) they can spin up more production.
That said, it's completely anti-competitive. Nvidia could design a inference chip themselves, but instead the are locking down one of the only real independents. But... Nobody was saying Groq was making any real money. This might just be a rescue mission.
DAT-style content updates and signature-based prevention are very archaic. Directly loading content into memory and a hard-coded list of threats? I was honestly shocked that CS was still doing DAT-style updates in an age of ML and real-time threat feeds. There are a number of vendors who've offered it for almost a decade. We use one. We have to run updates a couple of times a year.
By 2025 the majority of applications will use AI in some way (mostly to allow for sloppy user input), in 5 years there will be no non-AI applications.
For example, in healthcare (because... day job), you will be interacting with an AI as the first step for your visits/appointments, AI will work with you to fill out your forms/history, your chart will be created by AI, your x-ray and lab results will be read by AI first, and your discharge instructions will be created on the fly with AI... etc. etc. etc. This tech is deploying today. Not in a year, today. The only thing that's holding it up is cost and staff training.
You gave examples of how chat bots are going to be more widely used. Nothing more. So far I don’t see any examples that aren’t overpriced efforts in “shoehorning a chat bot” into something.
Like why will a hospital pay for a bunch of chat bot integrations when it’s likely my ChatGPT phone app will be able to view the form via camera and AirDrop or email the form? Meaning, I still see no examples of why OpenAI isn’t the Bitcoin of the crypto bubble (one use case, with one winner).
You say the only things holding it up are:
- Cost
- Training
Which can be said of any business that’s ever existed. So why is AI different?
So instead of just pointing me to non-existent Quicklisp packages, I can have a bot read the junk in my patient chart and hallucinate answers to pressing health care questions? I can't tell if this is a proposal or a threat.
I'd just love to see them keep this same energy when dealing with the actual police and end qualified immunity. They won't. But it would be the right thing to do.
If there is anything that can actually get a tech worker unionization effort going, it's going to be the back and forth on these RTO policies.
Folks have tried in the past around non-competes, or equity tomfoolery, but this is people's lives, family, kids schooling, etc. We know WFH works, if you spend the time to make it work, and upsetting folks lives doesn't make for positive employee relations.
> If there is anything that can actually get a tech worker unionization effort going, it's going to be the back and forth on these RTO policies.
I have nothing to add, but I wanted to say this is a really good point. If nothing else could persuade me to join or help create a union, it would be these brain-damaged RTO initiatives.
