←back to thread

The AI wildfire is coming. it's going to be painful and healthy

(ceodinner.substack.com)
117 points LordAtlas | 7 comments | 07 Dec 25 16:43 UTC | HN request time: 0.007s | source | bottom
Show context
ForHackernews ◴[07 Dec 25 17:42 UTC] No.46183481[source]▶
> Businesses aren’t asking “do we want AI capabilities?” They’re asking “how much can we get, and how soon?”

This is only because businesses are full of folks with short-sighted FOMO desperately trying to cram AI features into any product they can. AI is the new digital clock.

replies(2): >>46183578 #>>46183692 #
AbrahamParangi ◴[07 Dec 25 18:11 UTC] No.46183692[source]▶
Candidly, the accusation of short-sightedness doesn't really make sense when it comes to enthusiasm in a technology which often in practice falls short today but which in certain cases and in more cases tomorrow than today is worth tremendous business value.

If anything, you should accuse them of foolhardy recklessness. They are not the sticks in the mud.

replies(3): >>46183810 #>>46183974 #>>46184190 #
1. swiftcoder ◴[07 Dec 25 18:24 UTC] No.46183810[source]▶
> and in more cases tomorrow than today is worth tremendous business value

That's a nice crystal ball you have there. From where I'm standing, model performance improvements have been slowing down for a while now, and without some sort of fundamental breakthrough, I don't see where the business value is going to come from

replies(1): >>46183942 #
2. AbrahamParangi ◴[07 Dec 25 18:40 UTC] No.46183942[source]▶
The prerequisite for me to be wrong is that the technology needs to stop getting better entirely *right now* AND we need to discover ZERO new uses for what exists today.

That's a fairly tall order.

replies(2): >>46184361 #>>46185611 #
3. jpkw ◴[07 Dec 25 19:32 UTC] No.46184361[source]▶
So if the plateau is unanimously declared to have been reached tomorrow OR just one more tiny use case exists tomorrow and all others dwindle away to nothing, than you consider yourself to be correct? What a wild assertion!
replies(1): >>46185076 #
4. AbrahamParangi ◴[07 Dec 25 20:56 UTC] No.46185076{3}[source]▶
If the plateau is reached at some higher level of capability, I will remain correct, yes. If use cases are discovered that do not exist today, I will also be correct. You said it in a silly way but you're directionally correct.
replies(1): >>46186076 #
5. bigstrat2003 ◴[07 Dec 25 21:58 UTC] No.46185611[source]▶
We don't even have good uses today. That doesn't mean there won't be good uses tomorrow, but neither does it inspire confidence.
6. jpkw ◴[07 Dec 25 22:45 UTC] No.46186076{4}[source]▶
No. You state that this is all that it would take to be considered as tremendous business value. You are moving your goal posts on your point. My point is that you are taking an absolute position that there is tremendous business value in its current form(as a miniscule improvement and one insignificant new use case does does not equate to tremendous business value in itself) and so that remains to be seen.
replies(1): >>46187361 #
7. AbrahamParangi ◴[08 Dec 25 01:41 UTC] No.46187361{5}[source]▶
You either misread or are misrepresenting my statement and either way I am not interested in continuing this.