Some applications of AI are pretty neat. For example the DeepL translation tool. I convinced my employer to spend money on that. And they make 55 million in profits.
But forcing AI down our throats, like Google does with those horrible auto-dubbed videos? There’s no way that will ever be profitable
DeepL isn’t what is being touted as “AI” this week, though. DeepL is based on older translation technology (by which I mean “far more reliable”).
This is a shell game. Every time there’s a wave of “AI” it’s some new tech that shills sell as the answer to “real” computer intelligence. (It can never possibly be this, of course, because we can’t even define intelligence properly, not to mention making an artificial version of it.) There’s certain levels of hype. There’s a bubble (usually far smaller than this one, of course). Then the bubble pops and we enter the next AI Winter.
The small use cases for which the new technology is actually useful, however, loses the AI monicker and is just called “software”. Like what used to be AI for doing dynamic adjustment on pictures for night shots, HDR, etc. is no longer shilled as AI. It’s just … software that my phone has built in.
So currently “AI” means “LLM” outside of some very specific academic environments. DeepL is just software that (mostly kinda/sorta) works.
The AI models that are used for molecular research are literally remaking our understanding of biology and medicine. I don’t know why the big AI corporations don’t point to that as an example of the benefits of AI. I guess cause that doesn’t help them to exclude the proletariat from their profits.
probably it has problems of its own, and it will likely require a scientist to fact checks any thing the AI makes, it also depends if a journal is finicky enough to accept a paper that the experiments are done by AI. pretty niche, i doubt its using the commercial ones like OPENAI/ GOOGLES,or other. its probably made for that specific purpose of that research field. a small subset of users, so unlikely to generate profit that way because thats asmall group of "customers using a niche AI, and likely its proprietary to the UNiversity that made it anyways.
It definitely has its own problems, and the results are thoroughly investigated by the researchers. But yeah it’s very niche, however most models are freely shared between teams. I mean it has to be to get through peer review.
Some applications of AI are pretty neat. For example the DeepL translation tool. I convinced my employer to spend money on that. And they make 55 million in profits.
But forcing AI down our throats, like Google does with those horrible auto-dubbed videos? There’s no way that will ever be profitable
DeepL isn’t what is being touted as “AI” this week, though. DeepL is based on older translation technology (by which I mean “far more reliable”).
This is a shell game. Every time there’s a wave of “AI” it’s some new tech that shills sell as the answer to “real” computer intelligence. (It can never possibly be this, of course, because we can’t even define intelligence properly, not to mention making an artificial version of it.) There’s certain levels of hype. There’s a bubble (usually far smaller than this one, of course). Then the bubble pops and we enter the next AI Winter.
The small use cases for which the new technology is actually useful, however, loses the AI monicker and is just called “software”. Like what used to be AI for doing dynamic adjustment on pictures for night shots, HDR, etc. is no longer shilled as AI. It’s just … software that my phone has built in.
So currently “AI” means “LLM” outside of some very specific academic environments. DeepL is just software that (mostly kinda/sorta) works.
DeepL is based on an LLM:
https://www.deepl.com/de/blog/next-gen-language-model
Huh. That’s new. When I first tried DeepL it was not LLM. That’s an intriguing development.
I will update my mental database accordingly.
Yeah there are definitely some cool uses, it seems like analysis/processing uses are pretty good, but generative ones are not.
The AI models that are used for molecular research are literally remaking our understanding of biology and medicine. I don’t know why the big AI corporations don’t point to that as an example of the benefits of AI. I guess cause that doesn’t help them to exclude the proletariat from their profits.
probably it has problems of its own, and it will likely require a scientist to fact checks any thing the AI makes, it also depends if a journal is finicky enough to accept a paper that the experiments are done by AI. pretty niche, i doubt its using the commercial ones like OPENAI/ GOOGLES,or other. its probably made for that specific purpose of that research field. a small subset of users, so unlikely to generate profit that way because thats asmall group of "customers using a niche AI, and likely its proprietary to the UNiversity that made it anyways.
It definitely has its own problems, and the results are thoroughly investigated by the researchers. But yeah it’s very niche, however most models are freely shared between teams. I mean it has to be to get through peer review.