This isn’t the first post I’ve done about artificial intelligence. It isn’t even the first AI post involving Adam Conover, but given last week’s post about the future of TV and tech companies’ hand in it all, it felt right to revisit AI. Also, I posted about the possible tech bubble of AI all the way back in February, so it feels right to revisit. Enter Adam Conover and this interview with Ed Zitron from early July:
Some takeaways for the “too long, didn’t watch” set:
Tech companies want to woo Wall Street by presenting AI as “the next big thing.” From Zitron’s perspective, this is the overarching motivation of the tech companies, as better stock prices and more investors mean they can continue to fuel the enormous amount of capital going into AI development. Something that’s “kind of interesting” or “I guess that could be useful” won’t do.
There is an objective mismatch between what is promised and what is possible. We’ve all seen the CEOs or spokespeople invoke a very familiar science fiction future that they’re bringing, um, soon. But not too soon! But really, soon enough to invest in. Meanwhile, there are reports of the current crop of large language models reaching the end of what they can do. Data and his positronic brain are still in the 24th Century.
Tech companies have run out of “low-hanging fruit” that can be mass market monetized. One realization over the past year is what the current crop of what is called “A.I.” can do is really useful. Like, it’s ability to do pattern recognition at inhuman levels means things like detecting the risk of cancer! That’s awsome! At the same time, millions upon millions of people aren’t going to buy that cancer detection system. It doesn’t have “everyday consumer” use the way the iPhone did. I mean, being able to automate pouring through immense datasets to better do status reporting or prep analysis is probably a game changer for many people in many different jobs. But it’s often esoteric and distinctly unsexy.
None of these are necessarily shocking revelations from those who have been reading and watching pieces about the AI boom. Still, I found it an interesting conversation even as I found it frustrating, thinking of how much energy is being spent, literally and metaphorically, when there’s real problems that really smart technologists could tackle… and plagiarizing artists’ images isn’t one of them.
The tech giants are shoveling tens of billions of dollars into “AI,” so I doubt the bubble won’t pop without a fight Besides, looking comely to Wall Street is an established obsession (and arguable necessity) for most publicly-traded companies. I feel like there should be a Jane Austen-themed spoof of this.
I will let you know if that spoof comes to past at the next inevitable AI post.