←back to thread

747 points porridgeraisin | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
psychoslave ◴[] No.45062941[source]
What a surprise, a big corp collected large amount of personal data under some promises, and now reveals actually they will exploit it in completely unrelated manner.
replies(7): >>45062982 #>>45063078 #>>45063239 #>>45064031 #>>45064041 #>>45064193 #>>45064287 #
sigmoid10 ◴[] No.45062982[source]
The are valued at $170 Billion. Not quite the same as, but in same order of magnitude as OpenAI - while having only a single digit percent fraction of active users. They probably need to prepare for the eventual user data sellout, as it is becoming increasingly more obvious that none of the big players has a real and persistent tech leadership anymore. But millions and millions of users sharing their deepest thoughts and personal problems is gonna be worth infinitely more than all the average bot bullshit written on social media. That's also why Zuck is so incredibly desperate to get into the game. It's not about owning AI. It's about owning the world's thoughts and attention.
replies(8): >>45063158 #>>45063262 #>>45063487 #>>45063546 #>>45063592 #>>45063648 #>>45064254 #>>45064540 #
goalieca ◴[] No.45063262[source]
Companies all seem to turn against their users whenever they have revenue/earnings trouble.
replies(7): >>45063281 #>>45063308 #>>45063361 #>>45063477 #>>45064072 #>>45064300 #>>45064448 #
diggan ◴[] No.45063308[source]
It seems to me like some fundamental/core technologies/services just shouldn't be run by for-profit entities, and if come across one doing that, you need to carefully choose if you want to start being beholden to such entity.

As the years go by, I'm finding myself being able to rely on those less and less, because every time I do, I eventually get disappointed by them working against their user base.

replies(1): >>45063348 #
bigfishrunning ◴[] No.45063348[source]
Except LLMs aren't a fundamental or core technology, they're an amusing party trick with some really enthusiastic marketers. We don't need them.
replies(3): >>45063396 #>>45063421 #>>45063672 #
diggan ◴[] No.45063421[source]
Personally, I'm able to write code I wasn't able to before, like functions heavy with math. For game development, this has been super helpful, when I know basically what inputs I have, and what output I need, but I'm not able to figure out how the actual function implementation should be. Add a bunch of unit tests, let the LLM figure out the math, and I can move on to more important features.

For me this been a pretty fundamental shift, where before I either had to figure out another way so I can move on, or had to spend weeks writing one function after learning the needed math, and now it can take me 10-30 minutes to nail perfectly.

replies(3): >>45064100 #>>45064310 #>>45064464 #
insane_dreamer ◴[] No.45064100[source]
Sure, I’m more productive with it in certain aspects of my work as well. Does that make it a net positive for humanity? From the energy consumption impact on climate change alone I would say the answer is clearly no. And that’s before we even talk about the impact on the next generation’s job opportunities. And tons of other issues like how Big Tech is behaving.
replies(3): >>45064267 #>>45064302 #>>45064338 #
1. diggan ◴[] No.45064302[source]
> Does that make it a net positive for humanity?

That I don't know, and probably no one else, way too early to tell. I only responded to a comment stating "LLMs aren't a fundamental or core technology, they're an amusing party trick", which obviously I disagree with as for me they've been a fundamental shift in what I'm able to do.

> From the energy consumption impact on climate change alone I would say the answer is clearly no.

Ok, I guess that's fair enough. So if someone happens to use local models at home, in a home that is powered by solar power, then you'd feel LLM starting to be a net positive for humanity?

> And tons of other issues like how Big Tech is behaving.

This is such a big thing in general (that I agree with) but it has nothing to do with LLMs as a technology. Big Tech acts like they own the world and can do whatever they want with it, regardless if there are LLMs or not, so not sure why anyone would expect anything else.

replies(1): >>45066718 #
2. insane_dreamer ◴[] No.45066718[source]
> So if someone happens to use local models at home, in a home that is powered by solar power, then you'd feel LLM starting to be a net positive for humanity?

Sure, that would make a difference, but it's not gonna happen anytime soon, other than hacker hobbyists, because no one is making money off of that.

> This is such a big thing in general (that I agree with) but it has nothing to do with LLMs as a technology.

Correct -- I don't have any issue with the technology itself, but rather how the technology is implemented and used, and the resources put towards its use. And BigTech are putting hundreds of $B into this -- for what end exactly besides potentially making tons of money off of consumer subscribers or ads a-la-Meta or Google? If BigTech was putting the same amount of money into technology that could actually benefit humanity (you know, like actually saving the world from potential future destruction by climate change), I'd have a much kinder view of them.