100x this it is why all of the AI giants are going to fail. They are too big and inefficient to scale properly. This is why Google is just casually taking its time in AI and not racing to a finish line. AI is essential but if it already does most things good enough then it can take longer to make it more efficient.
Indeed. The more you do to add complexity or generate without ensuring it isn't pointless code adds bloat. It is still probably more MVP than junk developers will do, but not ever anywhere near as great as someone who studies a programming language.
I'm not saying AI isn't a good tool. However the less you understand what you're using and what you're doing the further you stand to geopardize the business you're working for.
I am actually not for the current administration. However having legal and regulatory standards on scientific papers is essential. I just wish it was established under a different administration so it could establish pathways to ensure international collaboration.
This is a reasonable take with possibilities of introducing ways to expedite the verification of researchers and contributors. Foreign or not.
The problem with scientific papers is that there is an exploitive macro economy of how many one can publish without sold evidence or research attached to the paper itself.
Also to add investors know stock can't keep winning. They will diversify before too long and doing more splits does not ensure more value as it depreciates.
Nvidia is worth so much if it fails it takes investments with it. The risk is too high.
This tactic is wearing thin on investors. All companies doing layoffs as of recent have started to lose share value. AI or not.
I think investors are starting to see stress on the market for fewer working people contributing back as customers and investors themselves. This creates depreciation in share value as no one is willing to invest.
They are opportunistic. They are using it as a scapegoat to lay off people they over-hired for for the growth they had during COVID. They are also using it as a scapegoat to offshore more and more labor.
AI is fine, AI eating up jobs and taking away autonomy of people's lives. Not okay. It is a tool, it is expensive to run if it isn't more efficient or better.
It is a very fun tool when used correctly. I think there is a point where our current technology will wall before we achieve genuinely good AI. We're starting to see that now.
We are also over invested in it which also leaves us vulnerable for a crash in the market.
No you're not wrong. Many people will see what you see. Enthusiasts will see it as monumental squeezing out that last drop of performance. In my opinion I think it is okay for enthusiasts to feel that way. I'm just satisfied with getting a tool as an aid.
Personal opinion we need to focus more on efficiency instead of how large or complex a model can get as that model creeps into more resource requirements. If the goal is to cost a billion dollars to operate than we've really lost the idea of what models are supposed to be achieving.
The problem with vibe coding closer is that the agentic makes a very plasticy samey feel unless you work with something that makes it unique or can pass a template through it.
Why not just write many small models for explicit tasks than running one bigger model anyway? I prefer the agentic subject matter expert design anyway. I suppose because it wants to look at the whole code base?