since it was worth $20 billion, bullish signs are that it remains top of the heap among LLM companies and has managed to scale with demand.
Bearish signs are that peak interest in LLMs is already over, AI search is not popular, hoped-for applications in software development and writing have not materialized, serious resistance to AI is already here with the WGA strike, Andreessen Horowitz is hyping it up.
Edit: I think some of the people replying are not remembering what the hype was like around the time of OpenAI's last major fundraising. Social media feeds like Twitter, Reddit, and HN were absolutely swarming with LLM content. People were seriously saying that this technology was AGI. That it had human-level performance on many tasks and would soon replace working professionals. Serious analysts expected Microsoft's AI-powered search to cut into Google's market share, to such an extent that Google shares lost value.
LLMs are still useful and may eventually be so useful that they even justify this valuation, but I just don't see how we are in a more hopeful world today, knowing that LLMs can not yet replace real professionals, that LLM-derived content was a short-lived fad on social media, that Google's marketshare is steady, etc.
As someone whose partner works as a writer in Hollywood — the strike’s AI-demands weren’t “resistance” to AI, as studios and certain circles were reporting.
It was a protection of payment: specifically, ensuring AI itself could not be given writing credit, nor could it be considered “source material”. These are important distinctions because if AI was considered a “writer” (and potentially thus a “showrunner”), then other human writers in the room could be paid as merely “writing assistants” to what is ultimately itself is supposed to be the assistant, like a tail wagging the dog. Furthermore, AI-generated scripts being unable to be classified as “source material” on their own means a studio can’t simply generate a very rough story outline, have writers actually make it a real story, and pay the writers much less because their work is considered an adaption rather than an original work. These are the same rules e.g. a Wikipedia article, or court case transcripts, etc fall under— they can be used as inspiration, but they don’t effect how much a writer gets paid.
Nowhere is AI usage actually prohibited, on both the studio and writer side of the equation.
Essentially, this would be like if Google announced everyone would be taking a 1-level pay cut because AI potentially makes them more efficient. That doesn’t make sense!
It hasn’t even been 1 year since mainstream awareness of AI started. Saying interest has already peaked seems premature especially when revenue is ramping so quickly.
It depends. In software development it looks to be a big thing already. And it's just half a year. As hobby projects I'm doing things that I even didn't think about because they require learning quite a lot. Those are different libraries that I need probably just once.
Where are you seeing this? It feels like it's just beginning. Also really not sure that the software development and writing applications have not materialized, I know multiple people who actively use it for both.
since it was worth $20 billion, bullish signs are that it remains top of the heap among LLM companies and has managed to scale with demand.
Bearish signs are that peak interest in LLMs is already over, AI search is not popular, hoped-for applications in software development and writing have not materialized, serious resistance to AI is already here with the WGA strike, Andreessen Horowitz is hyping it up.
Edit: I think some of the people replying are not remembering what the hype was like around the time of OpenAI's last major fundraising. Social media feeds like Twitter, Reddit, and HN were absolutely swarming with LLM content. People were seriously saying that this technology was AGI. That it had human-level performance on many tasks and would soon replace working professionals. Serious analysts expected Microsoft's AI-powered search to cut into Google's market share, to such an extent that Google shares lost value.
LLMs are still useful and may eventually be so useful that they even justify this valuation, but I just don't see how we are in a more hopeful world today, knowing that LLMs can not yet replace real professionals, that LLM-derived content was a short-lived fad on social media, that Google's marketshare is steady, etc.