Ah, sorry, didn't catch it ^^"
FightToAdapt
joined 5 days ago
Because rulling class got high on the promise that they could finally eliminate workers as a cost and be independent from us.
I think that the technology itself has been widely adopted and used. There are many examples in medicine, military, entertainment. But OpenAI and other hyperscalers are a bad business that burns through a loooot of cash. Same with Meta AI program. And while this has been a norm with tech darlings that they usually don't break even for a long time, what's unprecedented is the rate of loss and further calls for even more money even though there isn't any clear path from what we have to AGI. All hangs on Altman and other biz-dev vague promises, threats and a "vibe" that they create.
I mean, I'm working on that tech and the evaluation boggles my mind. This is nowhere near worth what is put into it. It rides on empty promises that may or may not materialize (I can't say with 100% certainty that a breakthrough happen), but current models are massively overvalued. I've seen that happen with ConvNets (Hinton saying we won't need radiologists in five years in....2016, self-driving cars promised every two years, yadda yadda) but nothing to that scale.
I'm not saying that it doesn't have any uses but the costs outpace the investments done by a mile. Current LLM and vLLMs help with efficiency to a degree but this is not sustainable and the correction is overdue.
I think this prompted investors to ask "where's the ROI?".
Current AI investment hype isn't based on anything tangible. At least the amount of investment isn't, it is absurd to think that trillion dollars that was put in the space already, even before that Softbanks deal is going to be returned. The models still hallucinate as it is inherent to the architecture, we are nowhere near replacing the workers but we got chatbots that "when they work sometimes, then they are kind of good?" and mediocre off-putting pictures. Is there any value? Sure, it's not NFTs. But the correction might be brutal.
Interestingly enough, DeepSeek's model is released just before Q4 earning's call season, so we will see if it has a compounding effect with another statement from big players that they burned massive amount of compute and USD only to get milquetoast improvements and get owned by a small Chinese startup that allegedly can do all that for 5 mil.
Why? If you automatize away (regardless of whether it's feasible or not) all the workers, what's stop them for cutting them out of the equation? Why can't they just trade assets between themselves, maintaining a small slave population that does machine maintenance for food and shelter and screwing the rest? Why do you think they still need us if they own both the means for the production as well as labor to produce? That would be a post-labour scarcity economy, available only for the wealthy and with the rest of us left to rot. If you have assets like land, materials, factories you can participate, if you don't, you can't
While I don't think that this is feasible technologically yet by any means, I think this is what the rich are huffing currently. They want to be independent from us because they are threatened by us.