• Krauerking@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      A barely useful autocomplete bot that runs on crowd sourced data that doesnt learn but gets filtered to be slightly more useful ks such a lame idea of innovation. It might be slightly useful over time but its definitely being overblown to separate morons from their hoarded wealth

      • 5BC2E7@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        if it’s so useless why have you not created a similar sham to get billions in funding? is word2vec and similar breakthroughs also non-innovative or shams in your views?

        • Krauerking@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Cause even if i came up with the scam i dont have the people to invest in it to make it worth billions? You need the gamblers with money already to be willing to hand it over.

          Scientology didnt come out of nowhere. The creator was already a best selling author. You need the rubes before you can have the successful scam. Also because i dont have the drive and just want to live my life not dealing with that many people and wearing a mask forever.

          And wait is word2vec just basically doing basic word association inside of thw already hugely associated word base to find common replacements inside word context? Dude… You could just have a lookup table of synonyms. Its just extra processing power for the sake of extra processing power. Its like people forgot to do things smartly and just show off how they can brute force laziness

          • 5BC2E7@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            ok, I don’t see why you could not create something “useless” if that’s all you need to get funding… openAI didn’t have microsoft. startups that have “useless” ideas don’t “have people” either. they have innnovations (or useless ideas according to you) . Most people with an opinion on the topic should be able to understand the value of word2vec and form an opinion on the vailidty of your perspective.

            • Krauerking@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Sam Altman was a college dropout who got $30 million in startup funds for his first app that failed and only went on to sell it for more than he raised for it. OpenAI wasnt founded in a vacuum he was already a former ceo 3 times over by the time he was handed the position for working at the investment group that had the money funding OpenAI. Of course they want it to sound revolutionary because they want to make their money back on the investment.

              You are ignoring the whole, Rich people with networked contacts, part of the argument that i literally said last comment. Start-ups absolutely have people. That’s how they succeed is people with networking.

              And then you conclude without stating your own opinion but that of the conglomerate of indoctrination. You are sold on the church of AI. And the idea is oversold.

              • 5BC2E7@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                ClosedAI didn’t invent word2vec. There are so many examples of innovation being driven or enabled by capitalism that it’s really strange that people assert capitalism cannot innovate and when given examples they reject then. Are mrna vaccines also useless?

                • Krauerking@lemy.lol
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Holy crap you keep changing the subject. You said GPT was the innovation then word2vec now mRNA. I’m simply calling out that the “AI” you held up as innovative is just a fancy auto complete that relies on cheap labor to actually make it work behind the curtain. I didnt say word2vec was made by anyone just not that useful.
                  And also science is not driven by capitalist needs of a hot subject like AI but on actual real world usefulness. Those advanced vaccination processes have been worked on by any and every government ever to help keep their populace healthy as long as they have the means. It isnt capitalism to want to save lives but it is to try and pretend your search engine is better now and help your partners sell bigger computer equipment.

                  You are so transparent, and just as substantial as mist. You have no base other than what you need to win an argument. You waver on your points and dont hold any value to your own words. Talking to you is like talking to an AI bot. Pointless. You only get basic thought that can only regurgitate what it already has been told. You lack context and comprehension.

                  • 5BC2E7@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    you keep changing the subject. the claim is that “capitalism cannot innovate” I give clear obvious examples and you keep rejecting them on the basis of your lack of understanding on the topic. i.e. you say word2vec is useless or somehow related to openAI. the vaccines might be more in your domain knowledge since you didn’t call them useless and try to confuse the topic. I’m not here to educate you so if you use ignorance as an argument I’m just going to point it out and move on.

                    to claim that you can’t have innovation with capitalism anymore is not even related to claiming that you need capitalism to innovate. are you really that extremist in your reasoning? it’s either completely useless or absolutely required?

                    I guess i should not waste my time with you and you can keep your loser/doomer mentality.

    • tb_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, yeah. A broken clock is right twice a day.

      Which I know doesn’t exactly equate to the current situation, but do remember that the point of capitalism isn’t innovation: it’s earning the most amount of money.

      Innovation is just a happy little coincidence thanks to competition in a fair market.
      When AMD was down in the gutter, Intel was just fine making token “innovation” in the CPU market while mostly taking it easy on the RnD while raking it in. Something they, eventually, got gotten for by AMD and more recently Apple silicon. But now, let’s say, Intel was allowed to buy AMD… Maybe Apple still would’ve switched to their own designs eventually, but PC’s undoubtedly would still be stuck on 4, maybe 6 cores.

      Monopolies are the anthesis of innovation, and monopolies are what corporations will move towards without adequate regulation.

      • 5BC2E7@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I was responding to the claim that “capitalism cannot innovate “ i am aware that innovation generally is not the goal but that is not the point i am contesting.