Wow - for anyone trying to understand the good, bad and ugly of generative hashtag#AI, this post by Ed Zitron, and the underlying Goldman Sachs paper to which he refers, certainly pull no punches on on two of those criteria. Guess which ones?! 💣 🔥
Zitron's summary, let alone the GS report, is a long and and provocative read but is well worth the effort. A few quotes that stand out:
☢ "All of this excitement, every second of breathless hype has been built on this idea that the artificial intelligence industry – led by generative AI – will somehow revolutionize everything from robotics to the supply chain, despite the fact that generative AI is not actually going to solve these problems because it isn't built to do so."
☢ "Covello [Goldman Sachs' Head of Global Equity Research] believes that the combined expenditure of all parts of the generative AI boom — data centers, utilities and applications — will cost a trillion dollars in the next several years alone, and asks one very simple question: "what trillion dollar problem will AI solve?" He notes that "replacing low-wage jobs with tremendously costly technology is basically the polar opposite of the prior technology transitions [he's] witnessed in the last thirty years."
☢ "Covello adds that the common adage that people didn't think smartphones would be big was false. He sat through hundreds of presentations in the early 2000s, many of them including roadmaps that accurately fit how smartphones rolled out, and that no such roadmap (or killer app) for AI has been found."
☢ "Being able to access information faster might make you better at your job, but that's efficiency rather than allowing you to do something new. Generative AI isn't creating new jobs, it isn't creating new ways to do your job, and it isn't making anybody any money — and the path to boosting revenues is unclear."
Phew!
https://www.wheresyoured.at/pop-culture/
Regards
Caute_Cautim
