• Wxnzxn
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    I think it will hinge on one thing: Will AI provide an experience that is maybe worse, but still sufficient to keep the market share, at lower cost than putting in the proper effort? If so, it might still become a tragic “success”-story.

    • A Phlaming Phoenix@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      It’s very, very costly, both but the hardware and the electricity it takes to run it. There may be a bit of sunk cost fallacy at play for some, especially the execs who are calling for AI Everything, but in the end, in AI doesn’t generate enough increase in revenue to offset its operational costs, even those execs will bow out. I think the economics of AI will cause the bubble to burst because end users aren’t going to pay money for a service that does a mediocre job at most things but costs more.

      • Wxnzxn
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s what I suspect, too, but I’m not entirely sure in my research so far. The question I am still unsure about: Is it as costly in running, or is the real costly part “just” the “training our model” part? I wondered that, because when I was messing around, things like generative text models could run on my potato PC with a bit of python scripting without too much issue, even if not ideally - as long as I had the already trained dataset downloaded.

        • zbyte64@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Can’t really answer the expense trade-off until you look at concrete use cases, something general AI is allergic to…

          • Wxnzxn
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            You’ve got a great point there, actually