←back to thread

128 points ArmageddonIt | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.797s | source
Show context
jampa ◴[] No.44501089[source]
I like Steve's content, but the ending misses the mark.

With the carriage / car situation, individual transportation is their core business, and most companies are not in the field of Artificial Intelligence.

I say this as someone who has worked for 7 years implementing AI research for production, from automated hardware testing to accessibility for nonverbals: I don't think founders need to obsess even more than they do now about implementing AI, especially in the front end.

This AI hype cycle is missing the mark by building ChatGPT-like bots and buttons with sparkles that perform single OpenAI API calls. AI applications are not a new thing, they have always been here, now they are just more accessible.

The best AI applications are beneath the surface to empower users, Jeff Bezos says that (in 2016!)[1]. You don't see AI as a chatbot in Amazon, you see it for "demand forecasting, product search ranking, product and deals recommendations, merchandising placements, fraud detection, translations."

[1]: https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/2016-letter-to...

replies(10): >>44501192 #>>44501224 #>>44501278 #>>44501389 #>>44501569 #>>44505291 #>>44505340 #>>44505796 #>>44506753 #>>44508378 #
mcswell ◴[] No.44505796[source]
"With the carriage / car situation, individual transportation is their core business, and most companies are not in the field of Artificial Intelligence."

I'm missing something here. First, I thought Steve's point was that the carriage makers did not see "individual transportation" as their business, and they should have--if they had, they might have pivoted like Studebaker did.

So if "most companies are not in the field of Artificial Intelligence", that could mean that they ought to be.

However, I draw a somewhat different conclusion: the business that companies ranging from Newsweek to accountants to universities to companies' HR departments should see themselves in is intelligence, regardless of whether that's artificial or otherwise. The question then becomes which supplies that intelligence better: humans or LLM-type AI (or some combination thereof)? I'm not at all sure that the answer at present is LLM-AI, but it is a different question, and the answer may well be different in the near future.

There are of course other kinds of AI, as you (jampa) mention. In other words, AI is not (for now) one thing; LLMs are just one kind of AI.

replies(3): >>44506050 #>>44506477 #>>44506513 #
joe_the_user ◴[] No.44506513[source]
First, I thought Steve's point was that the carriage makers did not see "individual transportation" as their business, and they should have--if they had, they might have pivoted like Studebaker did

But all 400+ carriage maker had pivoted, would they have had a chance to survive very long? Would they have all made more money pivoting? The idea that all this is only a "lack of vision" rather than hard business choices is kind of annoying.

replies(1): >>44507036 #
1. anovikov ◴[] No.44507036[source]
This. Carmaking is not viable on small scale the way carriage making is. If they all pivoted, perhaps 10 instead of 1 would have survived through 1929, the fate of all others would be the same - except staying carriage makers till the end they at least continued to extract profits, trying to all become carmakers they'd waste that money into retooling and retraining and whatnot and never made it back.
replies(1): >>44510138 #
2. mcswell ◴[] No.44510138[source]
I wonder whether the reason carriage making was viable on the small scale is that there weren't any (many? Studebaker was an exception) large carriage makers. Had Henry Ford's assembly line technology been applied earlier to making carriages, would all of those small carriage makers have been put out of business sooner?

Of course the other part of this is distribution. If you had a large carriage factory in Ohio, could you have profitably shipped your product to Kansas? Or would a small Kansas carriage maker have undercut you? Seen in this way, part of the reason for the success of a few large auto makers might have been the more or less simultaneous rise of the means of transporting large products by railroad.

replies(1): >>44510259 #
3. anovikov ◴[] No.44510259[source]
Railroad system in the Northeast was more or less complete by 1860 and by 1880, everywhere. Miles of railway tracks in us went in reverse from ~1917 with more dismantled than built.

I believe the reason why carriage making was viable on low scale was that advantage of scale wasn't as valuable for them simply for being simpler.