[karahime]

Not likely. Take with whatever grain of salt you'd like, but that was largely a property of development being academicized and subject to things like grant cycles, research topic fashionability trends, and institutional structure. It would be wrong to assume it's some baked in thing that's guaranteed to happen independent of how development looks.

[JsonDemWitOster]

But _AI today_ is heavily subsidized by investor capital in the same way investors subsidized social/mobile/big data/VR/blockchain in the past. It's not unlikely "AI" would get a soft taboo in the same way as if you just presented a mobile-first, big-data driven, VR social media app today.

Which, judging by the terrible PR optics AI has nowadays, could unfortunately seep into academia too. Fund grants wouldn't want their names associated with anything with "AI" in its name even if it's a return to expert systems.

[karahime]

You're mixing different things. Mobile first is integrated into new services to the point that they either are mobile first, or they have a design system which includes mobile as a surface. VR has a wide user base (MQ2 sold as well as the original Xbox) and is involved in both manufacturing design and simulation, and is hardly an academic taboo, even if the "main" topic of discussion is elsewhere right now. Blockchains are being integrated into financial infrastructure even as some people make snarky commentary about it. Sometimes optics is just an optical illusion.

[JsonDemWitOster]

Fair enough. Mobile and social became ubiquitous and are now table stakes. But my problem with VR and blockchain---even allowing for the fact/assumption that they are still relevant---is that they never lived up to their hype. They never became ubiquitous as mobile and social. They don't inspire investor confidence like they did in the past, if at all. AI, if it survives the public and regulatory backlash, could be headed to the same understudy role.

I'm using "AI" broadly here even if the current investor darling is just LLMs because, well, the term AI has been front and center of all promotions and investors and the general consumer public isn't really a discerning bunch. So I stand by my prediction that a "soft taboo" is likely where investors and consumers shy away from anything even remotely AI. The consumer backlash has arguably already started.

[karahime]

The vast consumer adoption and ongoing involvement seems to point the other way, though. I think a lot of the appearance of backlash is on (specifically anglophone, mostly) social media, which is going through a somewhat reactionary phase regardless.

[JsonDemWitOster]

Out of curiosity which markets exactly do you see with a positive AI outlook?

Also, I think you are downplaying the "anglophone" social media backlash too much for a couple reasons. _Anglophone_ social media is huge, even global. Everyone participates in anglophone social media even non-English speakers (who post in broken English, or comment in their native language in English-language content). So there is anglophone social media in all markets; it's not difficult to be aware of and espouse American public sentiment.

Even if you narrowly define anglophone socmed to correspond to the geo-cultural anglosphere, I think it's not surprising at all that the bulk of backlash is focused there because the leading AI companies are based there as well.

[selestify]

The Chinese market for one seems pretty optimistic about AI and the presence of AI in apps.

[nananana9]

> MQ2 sold as well as the original Xbox

I'd be interested in the "retention rate" for these two products. I wouldn't be surprised if the average original Xbox was used 2 orders of magnitude more than the average Meta Quest, which is collecting dust on some shelf.

I'd wager the typical MQ2 owner is someone with 20 hours of Beat Saber on it and 5000 hours total on Steam or PS.