446
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] iopq@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

It was also inefficient for a computer to play chess in 1980. Imagine using a hundred watts of energy and a machine that costed thousands of dollars and not being able to beat an average club player.

Now a phone will cream the world's best in chess and even go

Give it twenty years to become good. It will certainly do more stuff with smaller more efficient models as it improves

[-] kayohtie@pawb.social 14 points 13 hours ago

If you want to argue in favor of your slop machine, you're going to have to stop making false equivalences, or at least understand how its false. You can't make ground on things that are just tangential.

A computer in 1980 was still a computer, not a chess machine. It did general purpose processing where it followed whatever you guided it to. Neural models don't do that though; they're each highly specialized and take a long time to train. And the issue isn't with neural models in general.

The issue is neural models that are being purported to do things they functionally cannot, because it's not how models work. Computing is complex, code is complex, adding new functionality that operates off of fixed inputs alone is hard. And now we're supposed to buy that something that creates word relationship vector maps is supposed to create new?

For code generation, it's the equivalent of copying and pasting from Stack Overflow with a find/replace, or just copying multiple projects together. It isn't something new, it's kitbashing at best, and that's assuming it all works flawlessly.

With art, it's taking away creation from people and jobs. I like that you ignored literally every point raised except for the one you could dance around with a tangent. But all these CEOs are like "no one likes creating art or music". And no, THEY just don't want to spend time creating themselves nor pay someone who does enjoy it. I love playing with 3D modeling and learning how to make the changes I want consistently, I like learning more about painting when texturing models and taking time to create intentional masks. I like taking time when I'm baking things to learn and create, otherwise I could just go buy a box mix of Duncan Hines and go for something that's fine but not where I can make things when I take time to learn.

And I love learning guitar. I love feeling that slow growth of skill as I find I can play cleaner the more I do. And when I can close my eyes and strum a song, there's a tremendous feeling from making this beautiful instrument sing like that.

[-] spicehoarder@lemmy.zip 2 points 12 hours ago

Oh my God, that's perfect. It's kit bashing. That's exactly how it feels.

[-] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

Stockfish can't play Go. The resources you spent making the chess program didn't port over.

In the same way you can use a processor to run a completely different program, you can use a GPU to run a completely different model.

So if current models can't do it, you'd be foolish to bet against future models in twenty years not being able to do it.

[-] Deflated0ne@lemmy.world 13 points 14 hours ago

Show me the chess machine that caused rolling brown outs and polluted the air and water of a whole city.

I'll wait.

[-] iopq@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

Servers have been eating up a significant portion of electricity for years before AI. It's whether we get something useful out of it that matters

[-] Deflated0ne@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

That's the hangup isn't it? It produces nothing of value. Stolen art. Bad code. Even more frustrating phone experiences. Oh and millions of lost jobs and ruined lives.

It's the most american way possible that they could have set trillions of dollars on fire short of carpet bombing poor brown people somewhere.

[-] CorvidCawder@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 hours ago

Not even remotely close to this scale... At most you could compare the energy usage to the miners in the crypto craze, but I'm pretty sure that even that is just a tiny fraction of what's going on right now.

[-] Deflated0ne@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

Crypto miners wish they could be this inefficient. No literally they do. They're the "rolling coal" mfers of the internet.

[-] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 15 hours ago

Not the same. The underlying tech of llm's has mqssively diminishing returns. You can akready see it, could see it a year ago if you looked. Both in computibg power and required data, and we do jot have enough data, literally have nit created in all of history.

This is not "ai", it's a profoubsly wasteful capitalist party trick.

Please get off the slop and re-build your brain.

[-] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

That's the argument Paul Krugman used to justify his opinion that the internet peaked in 1998.

You still need to wait for AI to crash and a bunch of research to happen and for the next wave to come. You can't judge the internet by the dot com crash, it became much more impactful later on

[-] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 11 hours ago

No. No i don't. I trust alan Turing.

[-] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

NB: Alan Turing famously invented ChatGPT

[-] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 9 hours ago

One of the major contributors to early versions. Then they did the math and figured out it was a dead end. Yes.

Also one of the other contributors (weizenbaum i think?) pointed out that not only was it stupid, it was dabgeroys and made people deranged fanatical devotees impervious to reason, who would discard their entire intellect and education to cult about this shit, in a madness no logic could breach. And that's just from eliza.

[-] Dangerhart@lemmy.zip 8 points 15 hours ago

It seems like you are implying that models will follow Moore's law, but as someone working on "agents" I don't see that happening. There is a limitation with how much can be encoded and still produce things that look like coherent responses. Where we would get reliable exponential amounts of training data is another issue. We may get "ai" but it isn't going to be based on llms

[-] iopq@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

You can't predict how the next twenty years of research improves on the current techniques because we haven't done the research.

Is it going to be specialized agents? Because you don't need a lot of data to do one task well. Or maybe it's a lot of data but you keep getting more of it (robot movement? stock market data?)

[-] jaykrown@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago

Twenty years is a very long time, also "good" is relative. I give it about 2-3 years until we can run a model as powerful as Opus 4.1 on a laptop.

[-] iopq@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago

There will inevitably be a crash in AI and people still forget about it. Then some people will work on innovative techniques and make breakthroughs without fanfare

this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2025
446 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

74130 readers
2960 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS