"The cost to use AI is currently artificially low but, on the other hand, the demand is also low."
-
@futurebird I keep saying that, observationally, the market-clearing price of most of these AI-powered tools is zero. (I.e. people only want to use them, barely, if they're free.)
@futurebird Again observationally, people won't even pay for better results.
-
@futurebird Again observationally, people won't even pay for better results.
It's very nice translation and spellchecking software and it can make funny images.
-
"The cost to use AI is currently artificially low but, on the other hand, the demand is also low."
Is... that that really an "other hand" it sounds like it's the same hand?
@futurebird perhaps it is one of those AI hands with either 3 or 14 fingers?
-
@futurebird perhaps it is one of those AI hands with either 3 or 14 fingers?
Listen. Hands are HARD. The next update will address this I'm certain.
-
"The cost to use AI is currently artificially low but, on the other hand, the demand is also low."
Is... that that really an "other hand" it sounds like it's the same hand?
@futurebird the thing is, the one hand is in someone's pocket, and the other hand is at the end of a shoulder that shrugs.
-
F myrmepropagandist shared this topic
-
@futurebird the thing is, the one hand is in someone's pocket, and the other hand is at the end of a shoulder that shrugs.
Which one is the famous "invisible hand"?
I worry a lot about the "invisible hand" everyone says it's wonderful but the only thing I can think of with invisible hands are ghosts and aren't ghosts scary?
-
"The cost to use AI is currently artificially low but, on the other hand, the demand is also low."
Is... that that really an "other hand" it sounds like it's the same hand?
I can argue it either way. Same hand: prices and sales are low, and AI is not making enough money to break even. Other hand: despite artificially low prices, people aren't buying.
-
"The cost to use AI is currently artificially low but, on the other hand, the demand is also low."
Is... that that really an "other hand" it sounds like it's the same hand?
@futurebird
as far as I can tell, microsoft has already shifted to "charge people for *not* using it". And I suspect there are enough other companies going that direction to make it the overall industry direction. -
@futurebird
as far as I can tell, microsoft has already shifted to "charge people for *not* using it". And I suspect there are enough other companies going that direction to make it the overall industry direction.This is hell.
-
I can argue it either way. Same hand: prices and sales are low, and AI is not making enough money to break even. Other hand: despite artificially low prices, people aren't buying.
@CppGuy @futurebird even the people that make it don't know what it's for. "We've invented this thing that's hugely inefficient and expensive to use, and we don't know why, but if we hype it up massively, make it free, and make it seem like The Future Is Robots maybe people will invent a use for it that we can monetise?"
-
@CppGuy @futurebird even the people that make it don't know what it's for. "We've invented this thing that's hugely inefficient and expensive to use, and we don't know why, but if we hype it up massively, make it free, and make it seem like The Future Is Robots maybe people will invent a use for it that we can monetise?"
I've already agreed that I like the "talking spellchecker" ... is it supposed to be more than that?
Of course I used to be able to use google like a talking spellcheker but now it over-corrects and redirects what I type so aggressively it can't do that anymore. So I suppose we need all those data centers to replace the broken search engines.
(I'm being silly if it isn't obvious)
-
I've already agreed that I like the "talking spellchecker" ... is it supposed to be more than that?
Of course I used to be able to use google like a talking spellcheker but now it over-corrects and redirects what I type so aggressively it can't do that anymore. So I suppose we need all those data centers to replace the broken search engines.
(I'm being silly if it isn't obvious)
-
I've already agreed that I like the "talking spellchecker" ... is it supposed to be more than that?
Of course I used to be able to use google like a talking spellcheker but now it over-corrects and redirects what I type so aggressively it can't do that anymore. So I suppose we need all those data centers to replace the broken search engines.
(I'm being silly if it isn't obvious)
@futurebird @CppGuy I am old enough to remember spellcheck being The Editor Replacer. Turns out it has only fully replaced copyeditors in low-margin publishing, with bad results. Everywhere else it's Just Another Tool, as is Excel over handwritten spreadsheets. It will increase productivity when used with expertise, but it will also increase capacity to make big errors. A run-of-the-mill competence multiplier like all the other office tools we have.
-
@CppGuy @futurebird even the people that make it don't know what it's for. "We've invented this thing that's hugely inefficient and expensive to use, and we don't know why, but if we hype it up massively, make it free, and make it seem like The Future Is Robots maybe people will invent a use for it that we can monetise?"
@Flisty I was just watching a video (that could have been a blog post) on the accountability paradox. They never tell you what it is for, because the minute they do that thereās criteria for success, failure, good, bad. So they just kinda say āhere it is, take it as is and go find great uses for it.ā But they never say āgreat uses like X, which it is really good atā because they canāt.
(Apologies if one of you put that video in my feed yesterday, and here I am telling about it today! I do that sometimes.)
@CppGuy @futurebird -
@Flisty I was just watching a video (that could have been a blog post) on the accountability paradox. They never tell you what it is for, because the minute they do that thereās criteria for success, failure, good, bad. So they just kinda say āhere it is, take it as is and go find great uses for it.ā But they never say āgreat uses like X, which it is really good atā because they canāt.
(Apologies if one of you put that video in my feed yesterday, and here I am telling about it today! I do that sometimes.)
@CppGuy @futurebird@paco @CppGuy @futurebird add to that "in the future, it will be able to do X" which is essential Muskology
-
"The cost to use AI is currently artificially low but, on the other hand, the demand is also low."
Is... that that really an "other hand" it sounds like it's the same hand?
@futurebird reminds me of this... which is also not entirely real tech
-
@futurebird reminds me of this... which is also not entirely real tech
When I was at a little bookstore up in Halifax I found a book from The Museum of Jurassic Technology. It was an old-looking book and *claimed* to be from the 1930s. It was a catalog of the Museum with descriptions of the offerings. I was skeptical, but California is a very strange place, so I thought it might be real.
I decided NOT to look it up and just see what I could make of the object itself. Got about halfway in before I realized "Artists did this."
Magnificent!
-
When I was at a little bookstore up in Halifax I found a book from The Museum of Jurassic Technology. It was an old-looking book and *claimed* to be from the 1930s. It was a catalog of the Museum with descriptions of the offerings. I was skeptical, but California is a very strange place, so I thought it might be real.
I decided NOT to look it up and just see what I could make of the object itself. Got about halfway in before I realized "Artists did this."
Magnificent!
@futurebird @PizzaDemon
I have conflicted feelings about it, because I've met so many people whose knowledge of the actual Jurassic, and of biology and history in general, is so bad they'd have no idea it wasn't intended to be scientifically true. -
@futurebird @PizzaDemon
I have conflicted feelings about it, because I've met so many people whose knowledge of the actual Jurassic, and of biology and history in general, is so bad they'd have no idea it wasn't intended to be scientifically true.I was so disappointed that the deeply eccentric west coast "intellectuals" that the book implied might be real... didn't really exist.
I wanted to imagine them having a seance in the Winchester mansion to better understand billion year old motors.
-
I was so disappointed that the deeply eccentric west coast "intellectuals" that the book implied might be real... didn't really exist.
I wanted to imagine them having a seance in the Winchester mansion to better understand billion year old motors.
@futurebird @PizzaDemon
I got caught in the tar pit of trying to figure out what paleontological sites a Los Angeles based organization would be physically nearby.
