They don't deliver business value in software engineering either. It gives the _illusion_ of increased productivity, but a machine that drives your engineers to burnout in exchange for more code shipped that's still bottlenecked at all the other stages of software development is not a winning strategy.

The entire AI market is propped up on the hope that the models will magically solve all of these problems, and now that even Altman is realising they won't he needs the slowdown to stave of the crash for as long as he can.

Very disappointing. There is no "neutral" for AI, so this is effectively a vote for slop.

> I don’t think it’s widely accepted financial markets are in an AI bubble or there is actually any evidence to support this

It's widely reported on and discussed. You'll find plenty of people saying it isn't one, but I'm sure you can find an economist willing to take any position you like if you look hard enough. Not to mention everyone who's financially incentivised to continue to claim that there isn't a bubble.

> Even the most skeptical investors to bubbles like Buffet and Burry, have large stakes in Google and Microsoft, front line bets on AI.

Burry has been warning about an AI bubble for years.

> There is essentially nothing magical about being human. Our primitive brains were trained on logic, reasoning and processes. An LLM is simply this on less efficient hardware, but, improving at a speed faster than human evolution.

There is no basis for this claim. There is no evidence that human brains and the process of evolution that led to modern humans is at all similar to how LLMs function. If you're going to evaluate an LLM then evaluate an LLM, you can't say "Humans can do X, LLMs are like humans, therefore LLMs can/will do X" because there is no evidence to connect them.

> It's widely reported on and discussed. You'll find plenty of people saying it isn't one, but I'm sure you can find an economist willing to take any position you like if you look hard enough. Not to mention everyone who's financially incentivised to continue to claim that there isn't a bubble.

Our media is a weaponized crap factory. There is literally nothing but propaganda and insider knowledge. You're network is how you survive today, mass media and social media and anyone that uses these medias as guidance is weaponized against their own interests. Your own critical analysis, secondary considerations, knowledge of real factual history, and your effective communications skills are how you survive. Not by listening to others and their parrot echo of some media propaganda trying to control the narrative.

There's something to say about the extreme confidence people have that AI is a bubble with perpetually pushed up timelines.

It doesn't matter that AI is useful (but so was internet).

It doesn't matter that revenues exist (mostly fake and circular).

It doesn't matter that real unit costs go down (models are getting commoditised).

It doesn't matter that the margins are high (companies are secretly hiding the real costs because that would pop the bubble).

In their world view, the bubble is predestined. There's nothing that could prevent it - even with higher demand, even with higher revenues, even with higher margins. Nothing.

> It doesn't matter that AI is useful (but so was internet).

And yet we had the dotcom bubble.

> It doesn't matter that revenues exist (mostly fake and circular).

Oh people are paying for AI now, but will they do so when costs go up? Will they do so when the hype dies down and they realise that it doesn't provide the benefits it claims? Remember it's a feedback loop, a depression in the stock market will make companies want to cut costs to improve their numbers, and questionable AI spend will be the first thing to go. Once this starts to burst, it goes down fast.

> It doesn't matter that real unit costs go down (models are getting commoditised).

Are they? Why is every model more expensive than the last? Why are company AI spends spiralling out of control?

> It doesn't matter that the margins are high (companies are secretly hiding the real costs because that would pop the bubble).

Then why is everyone except Nvidia losing money?

> In their world view, the bubble is predestined.

You don't need to be a stock market genius to look at a technology that doesn't provide the benefits promised but is being sold as if it's going to change the world and see a crash coming. The bill comes due eventually, and when it does the gap between the actual value and the promised value will need to be addressed. If that's not going to be a "bubble pop" I don't know what is.

The only way the financials work out, the only way there is not some form of bubble, is if advances in AI not only continue at the current rate but speed up, and this technology becomes the most valuable invention humanity has ever made. If you believe that's the case then you're living in a fantasy world so divorced from reality that no evidence I could present would change your mind.

> ... you can be living in a golden era for software development.

Let's assume for a moment that you're correct. That AI is already better than most developers, for whatever definition of "better" you like, and they will very soon be better than any person. (I think this is a total fantasy and you've failed to recognise the limitations as the article points out, but I digress.)

In that case the end goal of these companies is to replace all software engineers. Do you not see that? They've not been hiding this fact. It's a good thing for you and I that these models don't work, because if they did the "golden age" is not coming for us, it's coming for people who own compute capacity and the rest of us will become labourers.

> you've failed to recognise the limitations as the article points out

Fixed weights don't preclude in-context learning and out-of-the-loop weight updates. And that's the only principled limitation mentioned in the post.

Additionally, if this is true companies that have replaced all their software engineers will discover that they themself can be completely replaced by AI by their former customers.

This is an extremely common misunderstanding about AI in software. In order for AI to "move up one layer of abstraction" it has to actually be an abstraction. But AI output will _always_ be flawed in ways that mean you still need to fully understand the layer below it.

Intelligence is still not well defined, and by more solid attempt LLMs absolutely are.

Intelligence, Knowledge and Sentience are three very separate concepts.

As the Portal companion cube taught us, we will anthropomorphize whatever the hell we want.

At least later-era Wittgenstein would disagree with you.

> This mostly solves hallucination

The author is factually incorrect here. Moving information out of the model weights and into the input of the model's context window in no way ensures that the model will accurately output content that was input from the context. This is true even when RAG is used to input exactly the correct data.

It does not guarantee accuracy, but it helps a lot in my experience; I find that models tend to hallucinate a lot more about things that aren't in their context window.

Proposal A would of course be the best option, but requires a two thirds majority for... some reason. Proposals B, C, D, E are all defeatist policies that appeal to a "here to stay" narrative. Proposal G is potentially workable but has so many carve-outs to be practically useless, leaving only Proposal H as a workable policy if A fails to pass.

Yep, that's impossible. The hard truth is that most people this lost to LLM psychosis cannot understand that fact. It's better to treat it like someone in a cult, arguing the facts isn't going to help if they refuse to accept them.