[dottjt]

It's that "it's only going to get better" part that is driving the bubble, I think.

The market has this idea that over the next year, we're somehow going to have AI that's literally perfect. Yet that's not how technology works, it takes decades to get there.

It'd be like if the first LCD TV was invented, and all of a sudden everyone is expecting 8k OLED by the next year. It just doesn't work like that.

[jstummbillig]

Fair – but again: If it just stayed frozen in the state it is now (and that assumption is about as unreasonable, as it being "perfect" in a year), it's already going to be tremendously useful for increasingly many people (when cost will go down, and they will, accessibility will go up) — at least until something better comes around.

For those who extract value right now, the simple alternative (just not using it) is never going to be the better choice again. It's transformative.

[thatoneguy]

Yeah, but this is different because it's largely just money -> more GPUs -> more people looking at the problem -> better results. You can't stumble upon an 8K TV overnight but you can luck upon the right gold mining claim and you can luck upon some new training algorithm that changes the game immediately.

[oblio]

This assumes answers which go from 8/10 to 9/10 increase the cost linearly. The scale could be exponential or worse.