[p-o]

I think the brunt of the disruption regarding AI is already behind us for LLMs at least. It's possible we'll see improvements over the following months/years, but government will inevitably start to catchup to the level of disinformation and confusion that AI has brought to this world.

Laws & regulations that needs to be created to reign in AI will undoubtedly increase the opportunity cost of training LLMs.

For some, it might be similar to the early 2000s, but I think it's just a healthy rebalance of what AI is, and how the society needs to implement this new, hardly controllable, paradigm. With this perspective, OpenAI has a lot to lose as it hasn't been able to create a moat for itself compared to, let's say, Anthropic.

[eloisant]

I think that even if the models were to plateau today, there are still a lot of room for improvement in all the tooling around them, people finding ideas of applications, and users getting used of them. So we're not done with the disruption.

Some of the apps made possible by smartphones only appeared a decade after they were made technically possible. A lot of the new use cases made possible by the Internet and broadband connections only became widely used because of Covid.

I was already using Skype 20 years ago to make video calls, but I've only seen PTA meetings over Zoom since Covid.

[p-o]

Yes, I think you're right that it is not the end of the road for LLM and the application of LLM might be adopted over time across a variety of industries.

I guess what I failed to convey in my original comment was that, like the Internet 20 years ago, the current advancement made by AI might stall at a foundational level, while the landscape evolves.

Essentially, I believe what you're saying is really close in spirit to what I'm saying.