[chii]

the "usefulness" excuse is irrelevant, and the claim that phones/internet is "immediately useful" is just a post hoc rationalization. It's basically trying to find a reasonable reason why opposition to AI is valid, and is not in self-interest.

The opposition to AI is from people who feel threatened by it, because it either threatens their livelihood (or family/friends'), and that they feel they are unable to benefit from AI in the same way as they had internet/mobile phones.

[duchef]

The usefulness of mobile phones was identifiable immediately and it is absolutely not 'post hoc rationalization'. The issue was the cost - once low cost mobile telephones were produced they almost immediately became ubiquitous (see nokia share price from the release of the nokia 6110 onwards for example).

This barrier does not exist for current AI technologies which are being given away free. Minor thought experiment - just how radical would the uptake of mobile phones have been if they were given away free?

[jfyi]

It's only low cost for general usage chat users. If you are using it for anything beyond that, you are paying or sitting in a long queue (likely both).

You may just be a little early to the renaissance. What happens when the models we have today run on a mobile device?

The nokia 6110 was released 15 years after the first commercial cell phone.

[duchef]

Yes although even those people paying are likely still being subsidized and not currently paying the full cost.

Interesting thought about current SOTA models running on my mobile device. I've given it some thought and I don't think it would change my life in any way. Can you suggest some way that it would change yours?

[jfyi]

It will open access of llms to developers in the same way smart phones opened access to mobile general computing.

I really think most everyone misses the actual potential of llms. They aren't an app but an interface.

They are the new UI everyone has known they wanted going back as long as we've had computers. People wanted to talk to the computer and get results.

Think of the people already using them instead of search engines.

To me, and likely you, it doesn't add any value. I can get the same information at about the same speed as before with the same false positives to weed through.

To the person that couldn't use a search engine and filled the internet with easily answered questions before, it's a godsend. They can finally ask the internet in plain ole whatever language they use and get an answer. It can be hard to see, but this is the majority of people on this planet.

LLMs raise the floor of information access. When they become ubiquitous and basically free, people will forget they ever had to use a mouse or hunt for the right pixel to click a button on a tiny mobile device touch screen.

[duchef]

I think that's a nice reply and these products becoming the future of user computer interface is possible.

I can imagine them generating digital reality on the fly for users - no more dedicated applications, just pure creation on demand ('direct me via turn by turn 3d navigation to x then y and z', 'replay that goal that just was scored and overlay the 3 most recent similar goals scored like that in the bottom right corner of the screen', 'generate me a 3D adventure game to play in the style of zelda, but make it about gnomes').

I suspect the only limitation for a product like this is energy and compute.

[qualifck]

Eh, quite the contrary. A lot of anti AI people genuinely wanted to use AI but run into the factual reality of the limitations of the software. It's not that it's going to take my job, it's that I was told it would redefine how I do work and is exponentially improving only to find out that it just kind of sucks and hasn't gotten much better this year.