I wonder if anyone has thoughts on the future of “content”? I ask this because of the general adoption of LLMs for information seeking.
On one side, I think that those who manage to generate a trusted audience can benefit from this as LLMs generate generic content.
On the other side, people could get so used to generic content — like Tik-Toks — that it will only be a handful of people coming to those generating thoughtful content.
That's a good view point. Perhaps they're not being alarmists or trying to scare people, but being honest about the capabilities.
Perhaps it can be better articulated and framed in a way that's well received. But, maybe that would be over-promising or not being honest about the future.
>Private equity relies on a basic technique known as the leveraged buyout, which works like this: you, a dealmaker, buy a company using just a small portion of your own money. You borrow the rest, and transfer all this debt on to the company you just bought. In effect, the company goes into debt in order to pay for itself. If it all goes well, you sell the company for a profit and you reap the rewards. If not, it is the company, not you, that is on the hook for this debt.
——
Not how I've seen this work. These often require a personal guarantee, in some cases the homes of whoever is applying for the loan. So, whoever wrote this article has no idea of the real acquisition process.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ll be happy to spend most of my time with my loved ones, talking, having fun, and investing my time in creative endeavours, but that’s just seems extremely unlikely. It feels more like we’ll be surrounded by constant wars, full of resentment and anxiety doomscrolling the live coverage of the destruction of what it means to be human.
That’s not being an AI doomer. That’s reality. Just open your goddamn eyes.
This is when I ask sincerely: how does AI truly benefit the average Joe?
Sure it can help you do things “faster” and it can give you “private/cheaper” advice.
But, AI feels increasingly like a thing that will make the powerful a lot more powerful with their data centres and automation shenanigans.
All the hype feels like it’s being injected into everyone’s brain like a virus. Oh look at this shiny new tool! But, how does it actually improve everyone’s life? We’ve gone from AGI to tokens as a service.
Sure, it might cure cancer, but… that’s just uncertain. Sure, we’ll go to space, but… we sure have many problems at home.
I’m completely divided here. I love using these tools, and it makes work enjoyable. But, like we read recently “you’re not your work”.
Of course they jumped into the race as soon as possible by mentioning ‘Apple Intelligence’ and working on it. But, I think this was more peer pressure than anything else.
Apple’s reliably late to the party most of the time, but they also reliably steal the show. I’m doubtful about OpenAI’s hardware just taking over.
I rather wait and keep using 3rd party models that keep leap frogging themselves and adding features every once in a while, than them just publicly beta testing a bunch of things on my iPhone. If this was the case, we’d see a bunch of people complaining about how terrible the product is and how Claude or GPT or OpenClaw is so much better.
My prediction is that Apple is the hardware and platform provider (like it’s always been). We’re not asking them to come up with a better social media, or a better Notion or a better Netflix.
I think their proprietary chips and GPUs are being undervalued.
My feeling is that they’re letting everyone move fast and break things while trailing behind and making safe bets.
I see where you’re coming from. Some will be empowered to do this. It’s like what the computer allowed but on steroids.
However, I think this only applies to a handful of people. I doubt the average joe goes around wanting to vibe code their own thing most users are “passive”.
I suppose one perspective can be that it's cheaper to pay $20/mo than +$150 for a 45min session. So, "advice" and "opinions" become cheap and accessible. But, does it translate into quality?
I still find it hard to accept boilerplate psychological advice from an LLM.
I think that part of the reason why we gravitate towards other humans is because we assume they've gone through similar experiences. That's why I don't take relationship advice from someone that has never dated someone. An LLM lacks... humanity... it can tell me what the textbook says but life's more nuanced than just tokens.
From my point of view an LLM has access to all the knowledge in the world but lacks the nuance that makes advice valuable in these scenarios.
On one side, I think that those who manage to generate a trusted audience can benefit from this as LLMs generate generic content.
On the other side, people could get so used to generic content — like Tik-Toks — that it will only be a handful of people coming to those generating thoughtful content.