You must log in or register to comment.
- 23 days
When potatoes came over from the New World, a lot of Europeans grew them as decorative plants. New shit makes people do weird stuff.
Not everybody is trying to make a business with so-called AI. The peddlers are just the loudest.
The companies promise their models can do all this stuff for paying customers. If the models were truly that capable, the so-called AI companies ought to be doing everything with them and be raking in the dough like mad. Which they’re not because they know the limitations of the models. It’s what economists call the bullshit gap between marketing and reality. And by economists I mean me.
- Senal@programming.devEnglish22 days
This is exactly the question i ask “investment advisor” services when they call asking if i want help managing investments.
For you to have a system that works well enough for me to be interested , there’d be no need for you to spend money on call centers full of people ringing up strangers for money, you could take all of that money and invest it in the plan you are trying to sell me.
- 22 days
I’ve always thought that as well. Surely it wouldn’t take them long to become ludicrously wealthy with their top investing acumen.
- 21 days
Ikr. If I knew a “foolproof” investing strategy to “make loads of money”, I wouldn’t spend my time trying to teach other people about it, id just be using that strategy myself and actually NOT want other people to know about it.
- jason@discuss.onlineEnglish23 days
Been shouting this from the rooftops since the beginning. If it was half as good as claimed, I would NOT have access to it.
- 23 days
I’d wager it’s simply not possible to be profitable using AI for most use-cases. You either burn way too many tokens on your queries or risk your business falling victim to an under-tokenized AI hallucination.
- 23 days
I love the assumption that if you spend enough tokens, it won’t hallucinate, like it isn’t a mathematical certainty or anything.
- 23 days
You can cut hallucinations by 90% just by prompting the LLM to.not guess API and function names and to provide it with full docs or MCP to find docs.
- 22 days
This logically leads to a similar question to OP’s again: if it’s so easy to cut down on hallucinations, then why haven’t the designers of this software already integrated that in?
- 23 days
Yeah but it’s not guessing in the first place. It has zero reasoning skills. It just outputs the most likely next word. Even when you ‘tell it not to’
- 23 days
I know I am getting down voted for this because people haven’t tried it. And let me differ, it has reasoning skills, it now gets beyond predicting the next word. And even reducing it to next word is some kind of primitive reasoning.
By experience, by telling the AI to not guess APIs and function names and instead provide it with a way of looking through docs, and inspecting the code and other tools to get it do some tests, the hallucinations disappear. I’ve been able to have better results with this setup.
This is very different than the “no mistakes” joke.
- spankysalmon@fedinsfw.appEnglish22 days
“it has reasoning skills” Nope. It has larger context windows and someone coded in the ability to reprompt itself for “thinking” steps that are literally just a new prompt with the same context that gets fed back in which merely increases the chances of it guessing the next output token correctly.
It still doesn’t “reason”. It still doesn’t know what the words mean. The modified algorithms are just attempting to generate the corrective prompts for you. If you’ve ever messed with them long enough, you’d understand that these, “no wait fix it” prompts have rapidly diminishing returns at the best of times. Their “thinking” is a bandaid, and a piss poor one at that.
- 22 days
I know I am getting down voted for this because people haven’t tried it.
People here have tried it, LLM use is basically enforced at a ton of companies and the tech industry crowd is a huge portion of the population here.
You’re likely being downvoted as you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how LLMs function. LLMs don’t reason. LLMs don’t think. Telling an LLM to not guess might help ever so slightly, but LLMs can and do hallucate search results regularly.
It’s a mistake to trust that LLMs aren’t hallucinating just because you told the LLM to not guess.
- 22 days
I juste don’t want to talk about this any more becausefor me adding those instructions in AGENTS.MD and giving it the full API and language and platform docs dropped significantly the hallucinations. You just disregarding my experience and want me to believe in your assumptions.
- im_fine_sandy@nord.pubEnglish23 days
This is kinda fundamental to economics: the moment AI learns to perform some task, that task becomes less valuable.
- 22 days
But then aren’t there just different tasks to do? VisiCalc and Excel didn’t make accountants irrelevant.
- im_fine_sandy@nord.pubEnglish22 days
That’s the economists angle, yes, but that’s not what I’m getting at.
You can’t make a business with AI because anyone can use an LLM to do anything an LLM can do.
There are exceptions in the short term, but they may not last. For example, we’re paying a hefty subscription fee for an AI service that scrapes financial data from scanned pages. It’s much more accurate than traditional OCR.
Presently its better than its competitors so commands a premium price. However, I don’t think it will enjoy that position for long.
- 19 days
This doesn’t make a lot of sense. Just because everyone can use Word doesn’t mean you can’t make a business using it. Oh no, everyone has calculators, guess you can’t have a business that uses calculators. Businesses and people in general use the best tools available for the job, which might be pencil and paper, or eventually an LLM.
- im_fine_sandy@nord.pubEnglish19 days
You’re conflating a tool with a service.
If you noticed that calculators were really good at adding up numbers, and started a business using a calculator to add up numbers for people, you won’t attract any customers because people can just use their own calculators.
That does not mean businesses do not use calculators.
- 23 days
They’re working on it. They just need a little more of your internal documents and source code.
- BooBees@fedinsfw.appEnglish23 days
They’ll announce soon that personal ai assistants require a blood sacrifice to run, on top of the monthly and metered fees.
- L7HM77@sh.itjust.worksEnglish22 days
Why does it cost so much to engineer new models? I thought AI can replace software engineers now, shouldn’t the development cost of new models decrease over time?
- 22 days
Joking aside - I think the whole “engineer time is expensive, computer time is cheap” approach stopped being true half a decade or so before LLMs were a thing. It was kind of self defeating - you’d think companies were trying to increase their usage of computing resources due to some misconception that it’d automatically decrease work humans have to do, saving them money in the long run.
I don’t have the numbers, but I wouldn’t be surprised if software/hardware costs exceeded engineering costs for about a decade now, with all these inefficient-on-purpose frameworks and with everything being on the cloud and with using various services for the sake of using a service.
- 23 days
They want AGI, not LLMs. They’re pretty much betting everything on getting there first knowing that if they do it’ll pay them back a millionfold what they invested up front. They’re taking a massive risk for a potentially massive reward. They’re coaching a college kid to become a professional athlete. It’s not profitable yet but they’re investing heavily in them in the hopes that one day it will be.
- 23 days
No, they’re coaching a spreadsheet to become a professional athlete.
- 23 days
Exactly LLM are unable to become AGI. So it just them wasting trillions on something that can never advance to what they want.
- 23 days
LLM are unable to become AGI.
You could not possibly know that. You’re attributing to it a probability of zero and zero is an extreme number. Unlikely is a claim you can defend. Zero you cannot.
- atomicbocks@sh.itjust.worksEnglish22 days
No, we all know that for certain. AGI is a pipe dream that’s why they made up the term AGI so they could act like LLMs were anywhere close to movie AI and not just slightly improved Watson (the model that beat Ken Jennings at Jeopardy). AI has been around for 70 years and we are no closer to thinking computers now than we were then.
- 23 days
-
The AI tech they peddle is impressive and has some uses; but it is nowhere near ready to live up to the hype they created in which you can just pay $10K a year for a license and get rid of a $250K employee
-
The AI tech they sell for $10K a year, actually costs $20K to run and they know nobody would pay the full cost, let alone the cost + their profit margin
PS: those are made up numbers to answer the question, while not real numbers, they represent the points I am trying to make
- 23 days
That’s because the whole point of AI is to finally back us all into a corner where cloud computing is our only option and we can be monitored and controlled, our news and opinions filtered, dissenters found quickly, and our IP hoarded and summarized, our markets predicted and our products beaten before they launch.
They dazzle the brain dead middle managers who all lament the lack of flying car futures with a piece of magic, and once enterprise (the big money) isn’t demanding powerful workstations anymore then average consumers can get fucked and we will be locked out of society if we organize.
-
- 23 days
Their business is the LLMs. It’s like asking if a loaf of bread is expensive, then why don’t millers bake bread using their own flour
- 23 days
If they were not profitable just selling the flour but saw the potential profitability of baking bread, I’m sure they would. It’s just that they are profitable selling the flour so there’s no need.
