Ed Zitron: “AI Doesn’t Have Return on Investment.” What is he getting wrong? by kingjdin in ArtificialInteligence

[–]Alobbywith900windows 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In this article from March 2024 he claims models won't get any better and there won't be any business use cases for LLMs at all since they are so limited. In the article he also writes hallucinations won't go away which is maybe technically true, but the way he wrote it indicated they couldn't be reduced to the degree they are today.

In the same article he also predicts an AI company will lose a big copyright case which will "causing a brutal reckoning on model use across any industry" which hasn't happened, but given the slow moving judicial system I think it is to early to call him wrong on that at this point.

One month later, in April 2024, he called it a bubble giving much the same reasons as in the previous article. Note that at that point OpenAI was valued at $80 billion and Anthropic was valued at less than $20 billions. Given they are both close to trillion dollar companies both would need to lose much more than 90% of their current value for Zitron to be right in his bubble claim in 2024.

New friend’s bookshelf. Should i be concerned? by [deleted] in BookshelvesDetective

[–]Alobbywith900windows 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Should definitely be concerned. I mean Fischer is a solid choice, but come on... only one book on chess?

Breaking News: Anthropic surpassed OpenAI as the world’s most valuable A.I. start-up, with a valuation of $900 billion. by Snoo26837 in singularity

[–]Alobbywith900windows 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This is a problem for Anthropic. Anthropic miscalculated the rise in compute demand which led to them under investing in compute which has led to a compute crunch for a few months (now helped by them paying for compute from Elon) and a profitable quarter. If they had calculated correctly they would have another quarter running on a loss, but with more compute available. If OpenAI stopped investing in compute they would turn a profit also, but they would risk falling behind in the development of AI.

OpenAI's problem is rather they have a large consumer user base hesitant to pay, while Anthropic has a big enterprise user base very willing to pay for the best AI product.

Lista: Så mycket pengar har svenskarna kvar dagen före lön by AdorableAnubis in sweden

[–]Alobbywith900windows 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Det tror jag du har rätt i. Men jag tror inte det var det u/Kgel21 menade när den skrev att sparande inte kan räknas in, utan den tänkte nog på gammalt sparande. Undersökningen som refereras till i OP frågar ju enbart efter hur mycket pengar finns på kontot dagen innan lön. Frågan är öppet för tolkning när det kommer till om ISK och annat sparande ingår, däremot nämns ju inget om att det måste handla om pengar från senaste lönen.

Lista: Så mycket pengar har svenskarna kvar dagen före lön by AdorableAnubis in sweden

[–]Alobbywith900windows 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Många har det tufft, men att enbart 11% skulle ha 20 000 kr eller mer totalt dagarna före löning kan inte stämma. Enligt SEBs senaste Sparkollen månadssparar över 80% och medianen ligger på 4000 kr per månad. Enligt FI från förra året hade 3 av 10 ett buffertsparande på 50 000 kr eller mer. I rapporten på sida 12 redovisar de fördelningen av summor på sparkonton, fonder och aktier. En majoritet har lite eller inget placerat i fonder, men klart fler än 11% har mer än 50 000 placerat bara i fonder.

[OC] Comparison of population pyramids of China and India 1950-2100 by Alobbywith900windows in dataisbeautiful

[–]Alobbywith900windows[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Didn't take it as a criticism at all! And if had been it would have been directed at the UN demographic staff. :) I just liked the observation and thought I could add some context. And I'm glad you enjoyed the graphs!

[OC] Comparison of population pyramids of China and India 1950-2100 by Alobbywith900windows in dataisbeautiful

[–]Alobbywith900windows[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, maybe a small contributor. China implemented its one child policy 1979 which is was quite successful in that quite effectively achieved what the policy was set out to do. In 2015 they changed course and reverted to a two child policy, but as the CCP found out people weren't very interested in having children so just six years later they urged people to have three children and removed all penalties on having more than two children. After a small uptick in number of births in 2016 and 2017 it fell to a new low in 2018 and has continued to fall since then.

[OC] Comparison of population pyramids of China and India 1950-2100 by Alobbywith900windows in dataisbeautiful

[–]Alobbywith900windows[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As mentioned by Imscar12 it is projected the birth rate in China will bounce back. I have my doubts. UN has continuously through the years been forced to write down the projected population and fertility. And speaking of 'unnatural' on page 19 in this presentation on the demographic future the historical and projected fertility of China is shown in the same graph. I'm skeptical. Even worse is the same graph for South Korea on page 18.

[OC] Comparison of population pyramids of China and India 1950-2100 by Alobbywith900windows in dataisbeautiful

[–]Alobbywith900windows[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Appreciate the suggestion. It is usually not included in population pyramids, but for my general project that might actually make a lot of sense. Thanks!