To judge whether the current build up of the AI industry we need to remember that it is not just a technology. It is evolving into a new type of intelligence. And it is doing it at an exponential pace. Therfore, comparing it to previous inventions such as electricity or nuclear fusion is misleading. This is reflected in how the market has such problems with the Nasdaq stock valuation.
> I mean, we can all use ChatGPT—can you stop saying it’s useless just because it somehow fails to count R's or compare numbers? Everyone else has moved on.
As a non-native English speaker, advancements in GenAI have made me ten times more productive in some areas—no exaggeration. Instead of spending hours rewriting documents and emails to sound natural, I can now focus solely on ideas. I wonder if critics fully grasp this non-native aspect and its associated productivity gains… Those who think in one language and communicate in another understand that ChatGPT (or similar tools) simply works.
As a fellow non-native English speaker, I fully agree with you!
(Although I would add that because I'm a writer I want to improve on certain things so I don't let ChatGPT write for me. But it's a helpful tool for the intermediate stages between idea and final piece, not for writing but perhaps for clarifying concepts or explain idiosyncratic expressions and so on)
Same here. It's helping to fill the gap between the ideation and finalizing phases, I would say. I'm fine with it rewriting my notes fully in some cases, but when I need precise expression or to convey a particular mood, I do it myself.
I agree with you, Alberto, that the hype is leading to over-investment by just scaling up the technology what we have at the moment. On the other hand, opening own eyes and looking around and seeing all the achievements, we also know that intelligence exists. After following the method, knowledge and theory development in neuroscience for almost three decades, I claim that we are clearly less-than-a-lifetime away from understanding the core principles of biological intelligence. Then, at the latest, artificial general intelligence will be available.
Interesting! I agree AGI - understood as an AI that can do what a human can and more - isn't as close as AI boosters say. I'm not sure, however, whether we need to understand biological intelligence first.
I agree with you with one important exception. Though you note the possibility, you underestimate how l much dumb money their is to fund the world we will live in without any return. You mention "millionaire investors" but not the "trillionaire investors" like Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi. Via Thrive, Softbank and MGX, thos etwo countris probably did half of OpenAi's last round. There is more where that came from and they can lose it all without consequence. I just hope they take larger and larger slices of the bets so that the retired teachers take less of a hit when the bubble bursts. Meanwhile, I cant wait to see what we build from all the cheap compute and empty storage they are overbuilding.
It’s so intriguing how my perception of your perspective, and worldview in some sense, is warped so that I only really remember the general sentiment of your writing.
I’d rule this as me being a casual and probably not particularly smart reader. potentially also my amygdala’s ability to become offended when some talks either very negatively or positively about AI.
Maybe this is because part of me does invest hope that it will prove even half as useful as many of the outrageous claims made? What a world we live in and I’m feeling the very human limitations of being able to keep up with it all
Thanks for your always interesting writings Alberto
To judge whether the current build up of the AI industry we need to remember that it is not just a technology. It is evolving into a new type of intelligence. And it is doing it at an exponential pace. Therfore, comparing it to previous inventions such as electricity or nuclear fusion is misleading. This is reflected in how the market has such problems with the Nasdaq stock valuation.
> I mean, we can all use ChatGPT—can you stop saying it’s useless just because it somehow fails to count R's or compare numbers? Everyone else has moved on.
As a non-native English speaker, advancements in GenAI have made me ten times more productive in some areas—no exaggeration. Instead of spending hours rewriting documents and emails to sound natural, I can now focus solely on ideas. I wonder if critics fully grasp this non-native aspect and its associated productivity gains… Those who think in one language and communicate in another understand that ChatGPT (or similar tools) simply works.
As a fellow non-native English speaker, I fully agree with you!
(Although I would add that because I'm a writer I want to improve on certain things so I don't let ChatGPT write for me. But it's a helpful tool for the intermediate stages between idea and final piece, not for writing but perhaps for clarifying concepts or explain idiosyncratic expressions and so on)
Same here. It's helping to fill the gap between the ideation and finalizing phases, I would say. I'm fine with it rewriting my notes fully in some cases, but when I need precise expression or to convey a particular mood, I do it myself.
I agree with you, Alberto, that the hype is leading to over-investment by just scaling up the technology what we have at the moment. On the other hand, opening own eyes and looking around and seeing all the achievements, we also know that intelligence exists. After following the method, knowledge and theory development in neuroscience for almost three decades, I claim that we are clearly less-than-a-lifetime away from understanding the core principles of biological intelligence. Then, at the latest, artificial general intelligence will be available.
Interesting! I agree AGI - understood as an AI that can do what a human can and more - isn't as close as AI boosters say. I'm not sure, however, whether we need to understand biological intelligence first.
I agree with you with one important exception. Though you note the possibility, you underestimate how l much dumb money their is to fund the world we will live in without any return. You mention "millionaire investors" but not the "trillionaire investors" like Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi. Via Thrive, Softbank and MGX, thos etwo countris probably did half of OpenAi's last round. There is more where that came from and they can lose it all without consequence. I just hope they take larger and larger slices of the bets so that the retired teachers take less of a hit when the bubble bursts. Meanwhile, I cant wait to see what we build from all the cheap compute and empty storage they are overbuilding.
It’s so intriguing how my perception of your perspective, and worldview in some sense, is warped so that I only really remember the general sentiment of your writing.
I’d rule this as me being a casual and probably not particularly smart reader. potentially also my amygdala’s ability to become offended when some talks either very negatively or positively about AI.
Maybe this is because part of me does invest hope that it will prove even half as useful as many of the outrageous claims made? What a world we live in and I’m feeling the very human limitations of being able to keep up with it all
Thanks for your always interesting writings Alberto