Sigh. None of this is surprising in the least. The cost of AI infrastructure and compute (coupled with the complexity of the chain) makes it prohibitively expensive.
It only has appeared cheap because of investor money flowing like Niagara on the off-chance that it could be made cheap enough to be profitable after getting everyone addicted to using it. I really don’t think it’s there, and it’s definitely not cheap enough to continue flying for free much longer.
Well yeah, doing actual research or understanding a topic would cut into his golf time
To date, I have not heard a single CEO talk about where the money will come from if no one is employed.
How can consumers consume if they don’t have any money?
Don’t threaten me with a good time. Deliver it.
Guillotines. Invest now before it’s too late!
Even the headline is wrong. Jobs have already started disappearing due to AI.
I have been using qwen-3.5-9b as a general purpose LLM that I can still load up while gaming (on a 16GB card). I never have issues if I’m under 10ish gigs of VRAM usage for the game, so I imagine it should work for your use case.
I’ve been generally happy with the results on everyday reasoning tasks and programming questions.
Jellyfin has definitely gotten leaps and bounds better in the last 4 years.
Trump has been President for 6 of the last 10 years.
I even use a fan in the winter. I like cold air on the outside and warm air on the inside. More than that, something about the wind moving past my head is soothing.
Yeah, this is a major issue across the board. For a wide variety of products, if they clearly marked which were AI generated, then the sales would likely speak for themselves.
But companies don’t really want to do this. They want to mix AI slop in with regular products, so that over time, the average consumer dumbs down enough to no longer know the difference. Then they just generate every product ever and number go up.
This still ignores the fact that no one will have money to put into the system from the bottom (which is the only way it flows in an economy), but here we are.
That’s the thing: it doesn’t have to be better since it’s 100% free. It could be considerably worse and still be the better choice for the price.
The fact that it’s mostly on par is absolute gravy.
You’ve hit the nail on the head.
Companies pushing for AI are playing a short game, not a long game. They have not considered the consequences of this course after a short term return (which may not materialize anyway).
The whole AI debacle is a great example of why it’s bad to have engineering developments without the philosophical conversations. We need the A in STEAM to tell the E’s when they’re opening Pandora’s Box.
No no, real numbers would hurt the bottom line. AI relies on great expectations and overly trusting techbros.
Same. Chalk one up for good conversation on Lemmy.
We could be beyond it. What hasn’t happened quite yet are things like failing currencies, but it’s entirely possible we are beyond the point of no return. Once the giant ring of investments catches up with itself, the snake eats its own tail, the bottom drops out, and the greatest economic crash the world has ever seen stampedes unfettered through the lives of every person on the planet.
To look at this another way: the government of South Korea has decided to give people the feeling of a strike without actually letting it affect bottom lines in any meaningful way. That is, they have relegated the strike (a key utility of those fighting for workers’ rights) to being a tool used solely to assuage discontent in the short term. Without economic teeth, it cannot be used to enhance the lives of workers, which is ultimately the explicit goal of any strike.
South Korea is of course not alone in reducing or eliminating the rights of its citizens so that corporations continue to profit at their expense.
Aside from scientific research (which can be mostly or entirely done remotely by machines), there is exceedingly little reason to inhabit Mars, or any other planet for that matter.
There are sociopolitical implications of extraterrestrial missions (think: space race), but in terms of human habitation at scale, what would be the point? In science fiction, there is usually a major impetus: the earth is dying, the earth was stolen by aliens, etc etc. In these cases, though, the fiction part handles most of the stuff that would be hardest in real life.
From a practical standpoint, anything that can be done on Mars can be done for mere fractions of the resources here on Earth. At some point, it just comes down to the economics. Even if there were major issues with pollution or resources shifting the planet towards uninhabitability, fixing or mitigating those problems is likely to use orders of magnitude fewer resources than going to Mars. If such problems were beyond fixing, it wouldn’t mean Mars gets cheaper. It would mean humans go extinct.
Now, there are charlatans who will say we absolutely need to inhabit Mars and will give you a barrage of tenuous reasons. Musk comes to mind. Usually this is done to drive investment in companies or technologies which have been nudged into seeming Mars-adjacent, but at the end of the day, they’re just raising funds for regular rich people stuff here on Earth.
I would have said start betting like Biff Tannen, but that probably will end up changing the timeline “too much”.
But if I can’t die and am immune to disease, I guess I exploit that. Can’t drown so I’ll hop in an ocean and go somewhere. No need for food or lodging. I’ll just wander for the next 100 years and peoplewatch.
Most of them weren’t serious about it. They spent 8 years bitching that extra amount because the President was black.