A lot of fair criticisms of the splash page here. But, I'll say the slide deck has a nice comprehensive review of research headlines over the year, at least.
And their highlights conveniently ignored any and all negatives except for the one they could spin into a positive. It's almost like it's in their best interest to sell you a future so bright you gotta' wear million dollar shades.
Yes I guess asking 1200 "ai practitioners" would give you 95% ai-users... but what is with the 5 percent? 60 people are ai-liars? Anti-Survey anarchists?
3 to 4 years ago chat gpt2 wrote much more creative stories, its faults actually made
interesting and absurd concoctions out of it's training material. Nowadays its just a machine for plagiarizing works and laundering copyright.
Quite a comprehensive report. But things look too rosy when the phenomenon is at the peak of hype cycle. So I was curious to see what the Predictions tab has to say. It has disappointed me with the "current-state" news again, not really any predictions.
What profession do you have that made you a Luddite based on the current state of LLMs and AI?
I'm an artist, programmer and musician, and is no closer to being a Luddite today than five years ago, not sure why others would either. Anti-capitalist or Anti-fascist I'd understand, considering the state of the world and the current direction.
Interesting, this is the first I'm hearing of that. It's too little too late for me though. I was paying for Perplexity Pro and Kagi Ultimate at the same time for a few months to decide which I liked more. Perplexity was often able to get me answers that I wanted faster than Kagi could, but in the cases where it would run in circles around a false result, it seemed like it would more than make up for the time saved on other queries.
The CEO talking about wanting to roll out advertisements was one of the final nails in the coffin for me. I have exactly zero interest or patience for being subjected to advertisements on a service that I'm paying for.
The black blaze stats were published by AI investors?
Or given the HDD setting, HDD investors? Are you sure they weren't published by the technical people that actually analyzed the failure rates of disks? ... instead of polling for opinions from Internet strangers, on platforms that are full of bots?
Huh? The authors of Blackbalze report are obviously bias since HDD is their business. That doesn’t make their reports less worth reading.
Nathan Benaich has PhD in Computer and Mphil in Biology from Cambridge, and majored Biology from Oxford. He is more than qualified to discuss tech topics, a lot more than many pieces of content here on HN. Not reading him because he is an investor? Give me a break
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly, and we've asked you repeatedly to stop. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
Worth keeping in mind this is made by a "AI investor", so obviously comes with a lot of bias. It's also a relatively tiny survey, seems only 1.2K people answered.
An example of the bias:
> shows that 95% of professionals now use AI at work or home
Obviously 95% of professionals don't use AI at work or home, and these results are heavily skewed.
The question just says "Do you use generative AI tools in your work?", which would probably include 100% of office workers today, directly or indirectly.
Maybe the 33 people who said "No" doesn't know the implementation details so they assume it's not used anywhere in their daily professional life.
I agree there is some implicit bias in this reporting, particularly because Nathan is colleagues (or at the very least previous colleagues) with Ian Hogarth, who is currently the chair of the UK AI Safety Institute, recently renamed to the "AI Security Institute".
So, I would have to take reporting on safety with a grain of salt. That said, I do think there are a lot of other interesting insights throughout the presentation.
just a quick point here; 1.2K is highly statistically significant, even for a national level poll/survey. The issue here is the potential for selection bias, which seems primarily to be driven by people who want to do the survey not sure how this ultimately skews the results but 1.2K is easily an adequate sample size
Okay I do toy with local image generation when I get extremely bored...
But other than that only AI use is when google forces it on me. And then gets things wrong... Which is easily found out by comparing it's output and synopsis on the links it give...