Mondez

If you are looking up something you don't know about, how do you know the info provided us correct?

"artists" and "create" do a lot of heavy lifting there. If you are prompting a generative model to make something for you, then you aren't an artist or writer or programmer and you didn't create anything.

Better technology won't make LLM techniques break out of their limitations, we are already throwing massive compute at it for marginal returns.

Brocas area on its own isn't intelligent and strapping a bunch of Brocas areas together won't get you there either.

Most of the frontier models as far as I'm aware are basically a bunch of differently trained LLMs strapped together and even then there have only been incremental improvements to their performance, no new functionality has really emerged from doing that.

LLM investment is IMO a dead end hype train and will require breakthroughs in other techniques of machine learning to put together something we would recognise as truly intelligent. I'll concede the possibility that LLM like functionality may be a portion of that but equally it may not be.

One day an AI might be, it won't be an LLM though.

Again, most people don't find it that useful that they will drop that kind of money on it even up front. Telling me that you are an outlier than has gone all in on AI and can't live without it doesn't really change the point I was making does it? Most people will just skip using AI if they have to pay for it and don't use it to "offload" most of their work to which frankly just makes you sound lazy.

Doesn't matter if it's useful if it's too expensive to use for the majority of use cases it has. Voice assistants like the echo are useful and people like them. However they aren't particularly profitable because people hate when they get monetised and won't use them that way.

AI is likely the same, most of the stuff it's being used for... even vibe coding where it's been hyped to the moon and back, probably aren't viable when the total cost of the compute needed for training and running are actually been charged for.

It's more about resource allocation, who gets to control of how much. You can eliminate jobs and have most people scratching out a meager existence or you can elinimate jobs and have everyone on a level playing field. I think we'd mostly agree we want the latter but currently looks like we'd need a war against the already wealthy to avoid the former.

You say that like building a nuclear plant won't require the metric fuckton of oil to build and replace at eol.

This is probably a fine and responsible way of using LLM, but sadly the loudest voices are those crowing about coding being a "solved" problem and bragging about being 10x more productive by doing very little and certainly not reviewing refactoring and understanding the generated code.

Only gotcha for this is LLM is being offered well below cost, will you still want yo use it at 5x or 10x the cost?

That fails to take into account the fact that the gaming was a niche hobby that wasn't particularly accessible in part due to prices. Given the far far larger market for games and the greater competition for gamer attention you would expect prices to come down.

Prices are set base on what the market is believed to be able to bare however so value per hr or cost to develop are somewhat incidental to the monetisation of a game.

Are we going to pay to go to a mental gymnasium where we complete coding and critical reasoning tasks manually to stave off the atrophy?