• Auli@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    It’s a bubble. It doesn’t mean the tech does not have its uses. And it is exactly like the .com situation.

    • suy@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      I think that “exactly like” it’s absurd. Bubbles are never “exactly” like the previous ones.

      I think in this case there is a clear economical value in what they produce (from the POV of capitalism, not humanity’s best interests), but the cost is absurdly huge to be economically viable, hence, it is a bubble. But in the dot com bubble, many companies had a very dubious value in the first place.

      • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        there is a clear economical value in what they produce

        There is clear economic value in chains of bullshit that may or may not ever have a correct answer?

        • suy@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          OpenAI doesn’t produce LLMs only. People are gonna be paying for stuff like Sora or DallE. And people are also paying for LLMs (e.g. Copilot, or whatever advanced stuff OpenAI offers in their paid plan).

          How many, and how much? I don’t know, and I am not sure it can ever be profitable, but just reducing it to “chains of bullshit” to justify that it has no value to the masses seems insincere to me. ChatGPT gained a lot of users in record time, and we know is used a lot (often more than it should, of course). Someone is clearly seeing value in it, and it doesn’t matter if you and I disagree with them on that value.

          I still facepalm when I see so many people paying for fucking Twitter blue, but the fact is that they are paying.