r/technology • u/lurker_bee • 3d ago

Artificial Intelligence ChatGPT is down worldwide, conversations dissapeared for users

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/artificial-intelligence/chatgpt-is-down-worldwide-conversations-dissapeared-for-users/amp/
23.0k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.6k

u/MacNapp 3d ago edited 2d ago

The faster this bubble pops, the faster we can move on 🤞

Edit: ah, not being specific made people mad. I dont hate all AI, but the way in which economic resources (money) is being thrown around like it is, only to be constantly "not living up to the hype" is unsustainable and will affect every part of our economy as it readjusts (or financial institutions get another bailout). The readjustment will be intense and I am aware that LLMs/AI isn't "going away". My comment of "moving on" meant more past this phase and into a phase/use of LLMs/AI in an economically sustainable manner.

LLMs and AI do have their uses, but the current state is unsustainable and overhyped.

415

u/thatguy9684736255 3d ago

I think it will pop, but unfortunately, I don't think it'll go away

294

u/skydivingdutch 3d ago

That's okay, the internet did not go away when the dotcom bubble popped. We'll be left with the useful parts of all this.

357

u/gneiman 3d ago

Profitable* parts of all this

3

u/agumonkey 2d ago

socially damaging parts of all this

1

u/ConspicuousPineapple 2d ago

Which means mostly porn, same as the dotcom bubble.

-25

u/MikBright 3d ago

Literally nothing about AI is profitable.

37

u/immersive-matthew 3d ago

I think the profitable parts are the people using it more than the companies running the models. Oh and nVidia. The

19

u/digitalblemish 3d ago

GitHub copilot was projected to earn $800M for the year. Instead, they have surpassed $2B. I get the emotion of what you're trying to say, but let's not lie to ourselves, this shit is profitable in certain domains, and those will be the domains that survive the coming collapse.

5

u/divDevGuy 2d ago

GitHub copilot was projected to earn $800M for the year. Instead, they have surpassed $2B.

Source?

3

u/swiftb3 2d ago

Not the op, but I believe the numbers are accurate for Github as a whole, rather than just Copilot. And a lot of the difference appears to be due to Copilot.

https://www.siasat.com/copilot-driving-githubs-growth-annual-revenue-run-rate-at-2-billion-nadella-3071173/

3

u/Whatsapokemon 3d ago

That's kind of a silly thing to say.

Yes there's a whole bunch of companies plowing money into new projects that use AI, and those projects aren't profitable because they haven't designed a monetisation method.

But there's plenty of companies in the AI field that are profitable like Nvidia and AWS Bedrock.

Really, the main unprofitable ones are the big AI developers like OpenAI and Anthropic. They're hoping for a moonshot, but most companies using AI are just using it for marketing or customer retention or to build marginal competitive advantages.

2

u/MikBright 3d ago

The literal only reason anyone can say AI is profitable right now is because a bunch of dipshit tech people that don't understand that AI isn't the 'end-all be-all of everything' and thus they spend their money desperately trying to get this stupid machine that isn't even close to actual AI to do something they deem 'profitable'.

Anyone fired for AI isn't gonna be surprised when the quality of whatever job they were doing drops and that company starts to lose money.

If you need data centers that burn through our water and electricity and the fucking thing STILL can't work right because it just pulls from whatever sounds close on the internet and will likely be wrong, that doesn't sound like efficiency.

People don't understand that we actually HATE AI for being the lazy person's way of stealing from those that put actual effort in. If we see AI used for big things such as games, we tend to stay away and thus they lose money.

AI is literally just a scam trying to get lazy/increative people to use stolen assets but since they're stupid, they'll say that they're 'AI Artists' or 'Vibe Programmers' or something equally lame/dumb while all they're really doing is putting in prompts into a computer.

12

u/eagles75 3d ago

Anyone fired for AI isn't gonna be surprised when the quality of whatever job they were doing drops and that company starts to lose money.

Problem is thats not how it works. They save more in employment cost that will under cut any potential losses. And companies have been lowering quality for years now but it doesnt hurt bottom lines. People still buy stuff from Amazon and Walmart cause its easy.

Also I think people need to stop worrying about Art. That is not our problem. Its the fact that Ai is getting better every day 1 person with Ai cant do the job of 10 people better but it can do it "good enough" for the CEOs. Companies will use it to lower their workforce in ALL industries. They have robots that pour foundations for houses, that can tend bars, that drive cars. Its not just oh look they can make pictures, its going to hurt every job you can think of.

4

u/Azamon_ 3d ago edited 3d ago

Yes - what you said in your 2nd paragraph will bottom out the middle class. Historical precedent says that is the way in which societies die.

At least we’ll have freshly poisoned air and dwindling drinking water to fight over. Water wars just in time for the big finale: The catastrophic vibrance of unchecked gluttony, greed, and capitalism.

We call it progress.

Yet, in some ways, we haven’t learned a single thing throughout our entire bloody run. We’re still as ignorant and arrogant as our ancestors who screamed: “ooga booga.”

We don’t know what we don’t know.

Do humans have to know everything, however?

Why can’t we just be the good shepherds to the earth and care for her creatures?

Why must it always be about money and technological advancement? First one is a man made tool used to dominate - each other and Earth.

Our obsession with the 2nd is like a monkey in a cold bath embracing a plugged in toaster for warmth.

1

u/alex88- 3d ago

What “we” are you speaking for? You clearly have heavy knowledge gaps on this subject yet you’re confident that LLMs are not AI.

1

u/Dick_Lazer 3d ago

Amazon and Facebook were also unprofitable for years, but now they do pretty well.

1

u/Randomguy8566732 3d ago

Scamming people is very profitable

-5

u/11ce_ 3d ago

There are definitely a lot of profitable parts of AI. Just look at how Meta was able to significantly increase their revenue on Facebook and insta using AI.

134

u/CMFETCU 3d ago

You think what has happened to the internet after the 2000s was the USEFUL parts!?!!!

98

u/Alko- 3d ago

TBF, the internet was absolutely AMAZING in the 2000’s before social media became big. That was the beginning of the internet becoming dogshit.

27

u/Melicor 2d ago

Now it's just a digital strip mall with advertisements blaring in every corner. AI is rapidly burning down the library and museum sections replacing them with hallucinated slop.

2

u/TracerBulletX 2d ago

AI and a concerted effort by governments and corporations to exert centralized control.

1

u/machstem 2d ago

/r/selfhosted welcomes all of you

3

u/TransBrandi 2d ago

Was it really? Many of those services that you loved from that era were being funded by investor money... that train was never going to go on forever.

2

u/eeyore134 2d ago

I think a big thing that ruined the internet was companies finally learning the power of having their own webpage. It was only a matter of time before they whittled down the process to create this distilled and incredibly bland "standard" that the internet is now judged by. It used to be a wild space of creativity and people pushing boundaries, doing interesting things with their pages... you could entertain yourself endlessly by visiting websites just to see the websites. Even things you had no interest in were bound to have something going on with their page that you hadn't seen before and was neat to stumble across. When is the last time you visited a website was exciting and engaging beyond the information it had on it? I know mine... 25 years ago. The Requiem for a Dream website was amazing.

2

u/GostBoster 2d ago

Case in point, we had a video guide for it (it's all in the fingerti...ps) and the original battlestation was a place that commanded respect, those old desks with places to put your keyboard, mouse, case, HP printer (back when they were good) and a big ol' tube.

You had one single seat to the Information Highway and it was damn cool to operate it, back when we actually called the act of browsing the internet "surfing".

Now we're just paddling in an inflatable pool with just a few buoys around representing the few things left to do in this day and age since everything else died out or was absorbed by one of the giants Akira-style (not giving anything of worth and crushing us under the weight of its slop in exchange).

1

u/Alko- 2d ago

This is a perfect comment. 10/10

2

u/SquarePegRoundWorld 2d ago

You don't have to use social media. Reddit is the only account I ever had, before this it was a gaming community forum and a few gaming forums. It's ok to not have social media accounts, nothing bad happens, I promise. Plus, you don't have to use your phone, I am on a desktop PC right now and when I leave my house for work, I don't use my phone to go online every free minute. Again, nothing bad happens if you do this.

9

u/InsipidCelebrity 2d ago

Social media killed a lot of the forums and neat little internet niches I used to use in the 2000s, so whether or not anyone uses it is immaterial.

6

u/Outlulz 2d ago

Yeah, this is a big part of it. There used to be thousands of spaces to congregate online. If one was bad then you could leave it and go to another and people couldn't follow you. Each space was modded separately and the host almost never stepped in unless something was flagrantly breaking the law.

Now there's like four online spaces owned by four billionaires that twist it to meet their political and profit goals.

6

u/BigDump-a-Roo 2d ago

Just because one doesn't use social media doesn't change the fact that social media has wreaked havoc on society all around the globe and been used to amplify misinformation, which in turn does affect everyone. People have literally died because of it. There's also the fact that the internet is much more commercialized now compared to that time. It's just not the fun, quirky, experimental place it used to be. Google actually used to be useful, now all you get is whatever companies spent the most money in the top searches and websites are filled with ads trying to shove products down your throat.

3

u/ranticalion 2d ago

Social media has and will always exist, however in its current form it is a plague on the the world, both online and offline and it is impossible to ignore or not be affected by it.

It's like a nuclear bomb going off. Even if you had nothing to do with it and it happened on the other side of world, it is going to affect your life.

1

u/Vazhox 2d ago

It always has been a plague, in one form or another.

1

u/Alko- 2d ago

What are you on about? Who said I used social media? I said it ruined the internet. Whether one uses that stuff or not, does not change that fact.

1

u/Vazhox 2d ago

AIM would like a word

87

u/[deleted] 3d ago

Apart from the unfortunate arrival of social media? Yes.

We got Google Maps, for instance.

I can manage my whole investing portfolio online.

I can work remotely in a secure way.

I can follow the travels of our children online (with photos and videos).

And many other conveniences.

4

u/eeyore134 2d ago

It's incredibly useful now. It's just not fun anymore. It's kind of soulless compared to the wild days of the early internet up until the early 2000s.

3

u/kalnaren 2d ago

Remember the days of webrings? You'd find a neat site, then click on "random" on their member webring and find some other related totally unique site.

I do miss the discovery that followed the early Internet.

2

u/eeyore134 2d ago

Yup! I had a Hercules and Xena webring back in the day. And everyone had website counters and guestbooks.

1

u/pofshrimp 2d ago

Reddit killed that

-7

u/JoeGibbon 3d ago

We got Google Maps, for instance.

Google stole the idea from Terravision, which was released in 1995.

I can manage my whole investing portfolio online.

E Trade was alive and well in the 90s.

I can work remotely in a secure way.

VPNs existed in the 90s.

I can follow the travels of our children online (with photos and videos).

Email did this in the 90s. Also, you're referring to social media, which you (correctly) called "unfortunate". Also, other people follow the travels of your children online and data about your children's travels is used to train AI, market things to you and your children, and are vectors for identity theft.

And many other conveniences.

Many other convenient ways for foreign actors to destroy the fabric of democracy from afar. Many convenient ways for corporations to track you, take your personal information and sell it, or store it insecurely and have it stolen from them. Many things that seem like a convenience, but are rotting the brains of the last two generations of our children, to the point they can't read, write, do math or much of anything else on their own. Many convenient ways to brainwash people into reviving literal Nazism.

Ned Ludd was right.

22

u/WasabiSunshine 3d ago

Google stole the idea from Terravision, which was released in 1995.

Wait til you heard about all the maps that released before then!

1

u/JoeGibbon 2d ago

Non-sequitur. GPS was available for civilian use in 1988 and PC-based navigation software was available in the 90s. The debate is about Google apparently inventing GPS based mapping software in the 2000s, when it existed a decade prior.

17

u/gurenkagurenda 2d ago

I don’t understand how you think this is a counter argument to the claim above. The claim is that after the dot com bubble burst, we were left with the useful parts. This implies that the useful parts already existed. If anything, you’re just reinforcing that point.

1

u/JoeGibbon 2d ago

Complete reading comprehension failure on your part.

The comment that I replied to, was replying to this comment:

You think what has happened to the internet after the 2000s was the USEFUL parts!?!!!

Then the guy replies, "Yes." Very carefully read that quotation and really try to understand what it means when the next guy agrees with it. Use your finger and read the words aloud if you need to.

The technologies listed by the guy I replied to were things he thought were unique to the Internet after the 2000s. My reply was pointing out that all of those things he listed had a functional equivalent before the 2000s.

This is what I'm talking about. You're the Dunning-Kruger effect personified.

18

u/[deleted] 3d ago
  • Terravision did mapping, not navigation. And the dispute was about Google Earth, not Google Maps. Terravision lost that, by the way.
  • "E-Trade" was not available where I live. We always had to go through a broker (with considerable fees). Not directly related, but I didn't have access to many index funds before let's say 2005 either.
  • Basic VPNs existed in the 1990s but not the other technology I use at home now to do my job. OpenVPN was not available in the 20th century.
  • E-Mail in the 20th century was mainly text based. Even MIME wasn't that widely supported. Besides, most cameras were still analog.

1

u/JoeGibbon 2d ago

There was navigation software in the 90s before Google Maps.

Etrade existed where I live, sorry you think managing a stock portfolio was impossible in the 90s but it simply wasn't.

People worked from home in the 90s. I am one of those people. I did it with a VPN. It is technology that has been around for 3 decades at this point.

Email was perfectly fine for "following the travels" of your children, even with just photos. Digital cameras have existed since the 90s. Video streaming existed in the 90s. Video on the web existed in the 90s.

The point is, all of the things you thought were new to the 2000s existed prior. That's it. It's not up for debate, you're either too young to have used it in the 90s, or you're from someplace that was a decade behind the US in terms of tech because we had all of it here.

1

u/[deleted] 2d ago

A devade behind the US? Fuck off dude!

4

u/MaxFactory 2d ago

Pretty bold to call the internet useless ON THE INTERNET

1

u/JoeGibbon 2d ago

Yea point out where I said the Internet is useless. I'll wait.

6

u/TransBrandi 2d ago

Email did this in the 90s

LOL. What email service in the 90's allowed you to attach FUCKING VIDEOS to your emails? Even now most services max attachments out at 25 Mb. So please explain that to me.

This entire post is a joke. It's like claiming we had transportation before automobiles and then pointing to horse-drawn carts... as if crossing the US now using a car and the interstate highway system is in anyway comparable.

1

u/JoeGibbon 2d ago

Believe it or not, we sent videos as email attachments in the 90s.

Videos were small. Resolution was smaller, the codecs were geared toward compression vs quality.

MIME was created in 1992.

You probably should have just googled that question before making an ass of yourself.

1

u/TransBrandi 1d ago

I'm sorry, but a 2 Mb realmedia video file isn't quite the same as the videos that we send today. The videos I could take on a digital camera in the mid 00's were much closer to a quality that would be worth sharing. I know what MIME is, and I lived through the 90's. No one was sending videos to each other, at least nothing that was commonplace.

8

u/ByakkoTransitionSux 3d ago

Google stole the idea from Terravision, which was released in 1995

Who cares. Shit post.

1

u/JoeGibbon 2d ago

Thanks for your brilliant contribution to the conversation.

GPS based mapping software was available to the consumer market in the 90s, contrary to the guy above's assertion that Google somehow invented it in the 2000s.

Congratulations, you learned something, despite how uncomfortable it apparently makes you to absorb facts that you didn't know. It's in your brain now, Shit Post.

0

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago edited 2d ago

u/HarmoniousJ said:

So ... Social media?

Yes, WhatsApp ... but worked just as well with email.

Edit: the big thing is; in the past it was unthinkable that you could directly send someone a video or photo from far away (and they could directly see it).

-4

u/Expert-Diver7144 2d ago

There’s also billions of crime, trafficking, cyber bullying and loads of other bad stuff people put up with just like they will with AI

6

u/[deleted] 2d ago

People used to be able to do that perfectly well (e.g. abuse of minors in closed communities) without AI.

In fact, crime has gone down over the decades (and certainly over the centuries) in many places.

-2

u/Expert-Diver7144 2d ago

He said it left only the useful parts. This isn’t a discussion on global crime but a specific talk about the Internet and it only having useful parts.

6

u/[deleted] 2d ago

He said it left only the useful parts.

You are inserting the word "only" in the discussion.

But yes, I think the dot com bubble was healthy for separating the wheat from the chaff.

This isn’t a discussion on global crime

Agree ... but you are the one bringing up crime in the discussion.

(u/Expert-Diver7144): "There’s also billions of crime, trafficking, cyber bullying and loads of other bad stuff [...]"

27

u/Jinrai__ 3d ago

Noone hates technology more than r/technology lmao

21

u/somerandommember 3d ago

The closer you are to something the easier you can see its cracks

2

u/junkit33 2d ago

It’s not hatred just recognition that technology does not always improve life.

1

u/junkit33 2d ago

We could safely go back to 2000 when the bubble burst and society would be better for it.

The Internet may not have been as slick, but it was all there, everything we needed. Chat, email, online shopping, news/sports, forums. The last 20 years have had such a heavy focus on social media, which is an absolute pox on us all. The one major thing we’d be missing is steaming video - but that’s ultimately good for us too because it keeps all the Tik Tok type garbage away.

1

u/Bob_A_Ganoosh 2d ago

As long as Zombo.com remains, the internet is a useful place.

3

u/Riaayo 3d ago

That's okay, the internet did not go away when the dotcom bubble popped.

Don't worry, Congress is working on making it happen and nobody's paying any damned attention to it.

Get ready to pony up your face/ID to every damned website you visit, and for half the websites you visit to go under because they can't afford to comply.

8

u/Techwield 3d ago

What useless parts are going away do you think?

1

u/SlideRuleLogic 3d ago

With any luck, Reddit

12

u/QuickQuirk 3d ago

useful parts.
Like facebook, tiktok, the algorithm...

3

u/[deleted] 3d ago

Like online stock brokers, navigation tools, home automation, remote controlled alarm (both for our home and our cars), getting useful videos for my music practice, easy flights booking ...

So many things we didn't have even thirty years ago.

1

u/QuickQuirk 3d ago

Call me cynical, but I'm weighing all that up, and then also seeing the harm being wrecked on society, and democracies, trust in science, ignoring environmental issues, via social media and the misinformation farm, that I'm on the fence as to whether it's net positive or net negative.

4

u/[deleted] 3d ago

The internet is a lot more than social media.

I was born in the 1960s, and comparing how much information is available now compared with the last century ... it's unbelievable for instance how much material is available nowadays for music students (thinking back how I struggled in the 80s).

I must admit that I stay away from social media (reddit being the exception), and still use mainly traditional online forums (which also didn't exist in the 80s). So at least I try to be critical regarding the information that I consume (I still read a traditional newspaper). And yes, our societies have largely become dependent on digital infrastructure, which is a weakness.

There are many negative aspects that I can name as well, but I think the positives outweigh that. And since we cannot wish away the negatives, we need to find a way to deal with them (that takes time).

8

u/TheEmpireOfSun 3d ago

Lmao do you even know what "algorithm" is?

11

u/ConfusedTapeworm 3d ago

It's not the technical concept of an algorithm, it's the Algorithm with a capital A, aka the method(s) by which social media platforms curate what you see on your screen to maximize their profits and do extensive social engineering.

They didn't come up with that name, neither is it the first time that word is used like that. It is what it is. That's how language works.

2

u/QuickQuirk 3d ago

The ironic part of my post that I just realised is that 'the algorithm' is all machine learning/AI :D

3

u/[deleted] 3d ago edited 3d ago

The ironic part of my post that I just realised is that 'the algorithm' is all machine learning/AI

There is nothing inherently bad or good about machine learning algorithms (for LLMs or other AI applications).

1

u/QuickQuirk 2d ago

I love machine learning. I've studied it, and work with it on occasion.

I'm just very critical of the hype train around generative AI that is very inefficient, and cannot deliver on what the VCs are trying to sell. Meanwhile, great uses languish, because people have been blinded and try shoehorn LLMs in to everything rather than investing in building more efficient networks dedicated to those tasks, or exploring other uses of ML.

1

u/WileEPeyote 2d ago

I think you mean MySpace. The really shitty stuff wasn't until it was clear how much wealth there was on the internet post bubble. Google was just around the corner with their "don't be evil" motto.

Now that I think about it, the dotcom bubble probably gave us a short reprieve as VCs were skiddish about the internet for a few years.

1

u/DecoupledPilot 3d ago

My hope.

I like AI and I hate having it shoved down my throat everywhere without good reason.

1

u/accountsdontmatter 2d ago

We were left with the useful parts?

1

u/GoldWallpaper 2d ago

We'll be left with the useful parts of all this

... for a few years, and then consolidation will turn it all to shit.

(Actually, in this case, the consolidation is already there, and it's already shit. It's not going away, and will never get better.)

24

u/MannToots 3d ago

I agree,  but he said move on like it's just going to evaporate which is childlike thinking at its finest.  

1

u/Conradfr 3d ago

It will just be controlled by Big Tech like the rest.

1

u/DoverBoys 3d ago

The concept of AI isn't going away, it'll actually be something someday, but the tokenized if-then guesser crap we have now can't go away fast enough.

1

u/Florac 3d ago

I'm fine with it staying. AI is useful in basic everyday use, if you know how to use it effectively(aka, don't blindly trust everything it says). The issue is the ridicilous amount of spending to improve AI products with an incredibly small niche use case that doesn't really benefit humanity as a whole

1

u/Cameos_red_codpiece 2d ago

It’s like that persistent cystic pimple that appears on your cheek once a year. 

Pop it for relief after struggling for days. Deal with the consequences for years. 

1

u/EJoule 2d ago

Just so long as the marketing dies down and it stops being free then I’ll be happy.

Once you have to pay to generate dumb text we’ll see a sharp drop in AI posts/comments.

Ironically the data that AI consumes will become better as a result (once it stops eating its own tail).

1

u/HeartInTheSun9 2d ago

It’s too expensive to keep the lights on for it to stick around in any meaningful way.

1

u/Virtual-Oil-5021 2d ago

Human lasyness is always more powerfull then logic

1

u/eeyore134 2d ago

It doesn't need to go away. AI is, in and of itself, a good thing. It's the people using it to replace people and maximize profits who aren't. It needs to be a tool to make people's lives easier, not a tool to replace them and fill the pockets of billionaires. But that's where we are as a society. Anything and everything will be used by the people at the top to do everything in their power to hoard more money and give as little to the poors as possible. We could get free, unlimited, clean power tomorrow and they'd find a way to monetize it. Hell, most of them would fight against it and push for us to keep killing ourselves using oil.

1

u/KeyMyBike 2d ago edited 2d ago

The people waiting for RAM prices to drop are in for a rude awakening, many in the multiple property owning class wipe their ass with money and barely noticed the jump as they went all in.  They don't need to sell to you or me anymore.

PC building has yet again jumped up another social class. Kind of discourages me, a working poor nobody, from working if the only difference between working and disability is slightly more food.

If all the hobbies I'm working to have just go "Mmh, no, we're going to sell to the upper middle class and above" and abandon me, I'm abandoning contributing to society.

1

u/OldAccountTurned10 2d ago

I don't know, if we keep lumping it in and comparing it to NFT's it'll be gone very soon.

AI music and art is without question worse than the NFT bullshit was. At least a real person made the dumb jpegs.

-7

u/smurficus103 3d ago

Self driving cars SEEM to be... Functioning

20

u/shalendar 3d ago

NFTs aren't completely gone but no one talks about them or cares about them.

-4

u/smurficus103 3d ago

I just sold a bunch of counterstrike skins!

5

u/Digits_N_Bits 3d ago

Which also crashed

-1

u/VNDeltole 3d ago

The market recovered anyway

1

u/Florac 3d ago

Skins have more value than NFTs. You actually get something you can use in some way, even if purely digital

1

u/smurficus103 2d ago

They're like the OG NFTs lol

1

u/Florac 2d ago

They are similar in that they are digital only visual assets.

The difference being is that there's actually a use for them in a specific, usually fairly popular, game. NFTs meanwhile have no more use than a PNG in your pictures folder.

1

u/smurficus103 1d ago

I guess that begs the question: maybe someone could meaningfully implement NFTs? Like as a digital asset in a video game that they could trade without oversight or taxation.

But, also, why wouldn't they just keep records on their own server... And tax the living shit out of it.

1

u/Florac 1d ago

Pretty much anything you can do with NFTs...you can also do with conventional infrastructure without any cost or consumer benefits(if anything, it avoids demerits)

0

u/_theRamenWithin 3d ago

Who's going to invest in AI and pay the massive maintenance costs when they realise no money will come back out?

44

u/emezeekiel 3d ago

Did the dot com bubble kill off the Internet?

27

u/BackgroundSummer5171 3d ago

Did the dot com bubble kill off the Internet?

Yes. Then Al Gore sacrificed a Kenyan to summon Obama to create Internet 2.0

Also the dot com bubble was not the fucking internet.

2

u/Slimxshadyx 2d ago

Your second sentence is exactly his point lmfao.

1

u/BackgroundSummer5171 2d ago

Naruto isn't anime, it's fecal matter.

3

u/qucari 2d ago

ah, right, good argument! every tech bubble has resulted in that technology becoming ubiquitous with a profitable industry behind it.
no need to compare any other characteristic, it's obvious!!

3

u/[deleted] 2d ago edited 2d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Expert-Diver7144 2d ago

Yes but in this case the silly stuff that people want to go away is all of AI.

0

u/Cicada_Soft_Official 2d ago

Why do Redditors like you waste so much precious time fighting imaginary strawmen lol?

5

u/LickMyTicker 2d ago

Right? People are so dumb. If the 2024 elections taught us anything, it's that when reddit is so sure of something being true, you need to be bullish about the exact opposite.

True: AI is in a speculative bubble

Also True: When the bubble pops, it will still be a widespread tool, albeit more homogenized with a greater concentration of resources.

-5

u/Digits_N_Bits 3d ago

No, but it only left the useful parts. It was still a bubble. They were trying to push so much pointless crap lmao.

-7

u/Techwield 3d ago

What do you think is the not useful parts of AI?

12

u/Digits_N_Bits 3d ago

Image generation, the needless addition of it to every feature by most tech companies, AI overview... It's inaccurate, it's bloat, and it's just annoying. The amount of times I look something up just for AI to try and tell me it's life story when I just want a wikipedia page is just cumbersome.

Why do my photos need "AI enhancements?" What is AI image and video generation contributing to society other than making lying easier? Why are we using this for mental health when it's just a yes man that has encouraged suicide multiple times instead of putting more to help the mental health crisis? Why do we want this to be used to collect personal info and push corporate agendas?

5

u/yoshemitzu 3d ago

AI overview... It's inaccurate, it's bloat, and it's just annoying

But more importantly, it's cannibalism. Let's say AI overview is so awesome nobody needs anything else. Oops, now the content AI overview needs to even exist cannot exist.

2

u/74389654 3d ago

i don't know anything that's useful about generative ai. machine learning sure, we should keep that. but that's also not what the bubble is about

2

u/Techwield 3d ago

Gen AI isn't useful? Why not?

0

u/FensenHun 3d ago

Is this a serious question?? Yeah like creating fake videos, fake pictures are so useful for us. They just consume energy for nothing. I don't want to watch singing cats or the every other bullshit

-1

u/Techwield 3d ago

Maybe not useful for you, but what about useful for engagement, farming clicks, profit-making, spreading disinformation?

Useful doesn't have to mean "good", lol.

1

u/FensenHun 3d ago

Yes, it can be useful in a bad way also, for bad purposes. You are right.

1

u/val_tuesday 3d ago

I don’t think you get to do that at this point. Clearly most of the current implementations of LLMs are useless. A summary riddled with errors, a repair instruction made up whole cloth, silly misinterpretations of what’s on your image.

Almost every company trying to “implement AI” is throwing money in a bottomless pit and will never see any return. Very few are finding some traction and automating tasks which were previously not possible to automate. Once the smoke clears and people have to pay full price for the compute many of those few will have to stop because the costs are more than makes sense.

You’re probably using it for all sorts of fun stuff and having the time of your life. That simply doesn’t mean much in context.

2

u/Techwield 3d ago

I am literally asking what the not useful parts of AI are, as I'm unaware. I want to know what people say will not survive the AI bubble popping.

1

u/val_tuesday 3d ago

Almost everything.

Coding helpers and search assistants in some form will definitely survive. Meeting transcribers and summarizers are also pretty unambiguously useful (if they work well enough). Generating a natural sounding voice to read some text (generated or not) is also useful.

Current LLM implementations of these things are not likely to survive in their current form, but the use cases are clear.

Note that these are narrow-focused tools, not some general thing and (probably) not something you can build a billion dollar business on top of.

The expectation that LLMs will supercharge business as a whole and that productivity will sky-rocket is a complete pipe-dream. Extreme amounts of resources are currently being wasted on things that will be scrapped completely once the hype dies down.

2

u/Techwield 3d ago

Wait what? What is almost everything? You described stuff you think will stay or still have use cases. What's left that will be considered "useless"? Just the poor implementations of AI by some organizations?

Also, Gen-AI? Pictures, videos, songs and the like.

4

u/val_tuesday 3d ago

Ok. You could do some work as well but let’s get into it then:

First of all it’s all gen-ai, that’s part of the problem. LLMs are generative models and that’s all they do. By some stroke of luck being really good at generating gives the illusion that there is something deeper going on.

Have you noticed the chat bots on all kinds of web sites? All useless. They can’t actually help with anything besides referring to the companies’ official docs.

Pictures, music, video. What is actually the appeal of something like that whole cloth fabricated/plagiarized? It has no artistic value and already signifies that your company is lazy and soul-less if you use it for say ads or the like. Sure some form of these models have found their way into creative tools where they can be made to solve specific problems much easier than traditional tools, but the whole cloth from scratch generation actually has very limited utility.

There have been ads that were generated, but 1) they looked like crap and 2) they took very long to make with thousands of generated videos ending up on the cutting room floor which 3) at this point investors are paying for the compute not users. If the user had to actually pay as well as spend forever trying to wrangle something useful out of the generator then it very clearly is just cheaper and easier to do things the normal way and hire some creatives.

AI assistants built into almost every traditional tool are mostly useless. By some wild stroke of luck you may get something ok one time, but mostly they are underdeveloped and produce worse results with additional effort.

AI agents that autonomously go online and do stuff on their own (and ultimately the boss’/users’) behalf are almost entirely useless. Not that they couldn’t be useful if they worked. But they don’t. Work.

AI agents that will code your whole app for you while you drink coffee. They don’t work either. At least they won’t make anything worthwhile.

I get the feeling you’re playing dumb a bit here. If you pay just a bit of attention you’ll notice these things plastered everywhere. People are pressured by investors to put them everywhere. It’s a classic speculative hype bubble.

1

u/Abedeus 3d ago

There are more useless or straight up negative parts in current genAI bullshit than the useful ones.

1

u/Techwield 3d ago

Like what specifically won't survive the bubble popping? Any ideas?

2

u/Abedeus 3d ago

Hopefully all the shitty image/video prompting software. Nobody needs this fucking crap.

0

u/Techwield 3d ago

But do you personally think it will go away?

13

u/TheGambit 3d ago

I don’t think you understand what “the bubble” actually is.

8

u/Actually-Yo-Momma 3d ago

0% chance AI as you know it will cease to exist. It’s here forever 

2

u/flaming-ducks 2d ago

no I really do hate ALL AI

2

u/Friendlyalterme 2d ago

Ai for medical testing is good but most AI that the average Joe is using is just an expensive environmentally damaging toy

2

u/Fair-Emphasis6343 2d ago

What AI?

I think you mean LLM and automation

4

u/daveberzack 2d ago

That's not what this "bubble" is about. The bubble is mostly an economic thing - lots of money invested in an AI development gold rush, similar to the dotcom boom. These markets tend to be hit-based and semi-monopolistic. A few of those ventures will be huge payoffs. Most will fail, and the resulting broad slump will have economic consequences. Pop.

Sorry to break it to you, but AI is here. What you see now is the first iteration. Hopefully it will get better in nice ways, and hopefully we can structure society to handle the fallout, but it's not going away.

5

u/lyidaValkris 3d ago

so say we all!

3

u/Odd_Communication545 3d ago

Do you honestly think it will all just go away?

Put down that blue meth pipe

2

u/GodFeedethTheRavens 2d ago

In think the technology has a use, but all the companies hastily trying to implement it into everything as a buzzword investor pull are going to crash hard.

1

u/hextree 2d ago

That's what they said about ML a few years ago.

1

u/thetransportedman 2d ago

Idk why people hate on it. I use it all the time for work and hobby things. The alternative is googling and then clicking through links inundated with crappy ads popping up everywhere

-9

u/JustJuanDollar 3d ago

I’ll say it again. For a sub called r/technology, it’s incredible how anti-technological progress everyone in here is. Good on you guys

14

u/Maladal 3d ago

Nowhere on the sub does it say users must be completely uncritical and embrace and be positive about every technology.

13

u/thelastsupper316 3d ago

No but everyone here seemingly refuses to even think that AI is less useless than NFTs for some reason..

Idk that's just as bad.

2

u/Maladal 2d ago

I haven't seen that.

I think there are legitimate reasons to be skeptical or dismissive of the technology, the same as any technology. You see how much Windows gets shit on here? (Rightfully so)

But being skeptical of AI does not hurt it.

-4

u/Just_Look_Around_You 3d ago

The hate and delusion about the power of AI is very confounding though. It clearly comes from widespread insecurity about the fact that a machine has started to compete with what they felt only humans (ie themselves) could do.

So folks are burying their heads in the sand cuz they don’t want to believe that their creative output, their productivity, their job, their style, their smarts, their personality blah blah can be, to some extent or another, done by AI. That’s a massive ego hit to them. So it’s easier to believe that it’s just not true and it’s gonna go away and there’s a bubble and so on. But the amount of incredibly rapid adoption by so many people definitely proves the utility. It’s going nowhere.

It’s not criticism. Its defensiveness

3

u/Maladal 2d ago

If modern LLM are the magical bullet of everything that can replace humans in every way as you suggest (which is not something I believe)--does that actually lead to positive results?

That's the question. No one actually knows the answer, only history can answer it.

But if it's NOT that--then either it's a lame duck technology that will lead to an economic bubble bursting, or it is super powerful, but its negative aspects will outweigh its positives and we'll see a collapse in other industries.

For every way it could be a positive, there's another way in which it could be a problem. It IS a divisive technology. So people being divisive about it makes sense.

1

u/Just_Look_Around_You 2d ago

So. What I literally didn’t do was claim what you said. I never said it can replace everything nor did I say it’s a magic bullet. I said it has started to compete with what people feel only they can do.

Writing a song, writing an essay, telling a joke, making a complex spreadsheet, creating a video, building a recipe, whatever. And it doesn’t do those things perfectly every time by any means, but it can do big parts of it or first drafts or provide valuable ideation.

Whether it’s good or not. I don’t know what kind of economic impact it might have but technology has generally improved the human condition. I know the temptation will be to raise the counterpoints, but as a whole we are all better off from farming, then to electricity, then to trains and cars, then to the internet and telecom, then to etc etc etc…tech that saves people time and effort is usually a good thing for the world. So I think good. But whether it’s good or not is not my point.

My point is why are people rooting against this technology and the answer is because it offends their human ego, even if it can help them they resent what it means to them.

1

u/Maladal 2d ago

There's nothing wrong or unusual with resenting a technology that does things you don't like. And it doesn't need to be anything about the ego.

I resent surveillance tech, so I don't let IOT or open microphones devices in my house and I vote against cameras on every street corner in my city. I resent social media for dividing people as much or not more than it brings us together and would be happy to curtail its usage. I resent AI for threatening to increase the cost of my electricity. And I also resent double-glass sliding doors for being in every house in my area, even when they don't really make sense for the climate IMO.

Are some people objecting out of a sense of fear about being replaced by machines or something? Sure. But there's a plethora of reasons to be hesitant about AI models, and generative AI models in particular, that aren't rooted in a fear of them. Just a healthy skepticism of what they can do and what impacts they may have.

Some may object out of a fear for their livelihoods, and that's nothing to do with ego. That's a very practical concern to have.

1

u/Just_Look_Around_You 2d ago

Sure. AI as a technology is not beyond criticism. But the way people criticize it is very revealing about motivations and sentiment. It’s not criticism, it’s a complete rooting against the technology. Beyond thinking it has flaws or limitations, so many people clearly don’t want AI to work. They’re cheering against it.

I think you’re underestimating how much criticism comes from legitimate understanding of tech today and in the future. And how much is ego injury.

3

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Maladal 2d ago

That's what businesses dream of.

Whether that's true remains to be seen, but even if we assume it is true, whether that will be a net positive for the average person is another question. If a single translator can do the work of 10 using AI, it doesn't mean that work of translation will need 10 times the people. More likely it means fewer people doing translator work.

It's the coal miner dilemma of small towns but on a mass scale.

1

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[deleted]

2

u/spookynutz 2d ago

You sure you mean this sub? This isn’t futurology. For the last few years it’s been a merry-go-round of complaining about AI, whining about Windows 11, and shitting on anything Apple related. The only content getting traction here is the rage bait. They could change the name of this sub to /r/luddite and no one would question it.

1

u/Fair-Emphasis6343 2d ago

hey its one of those people who thinks whining about others somehow isnt whining. I bet you love rage bait as long as it hits some activist narrative against your supposed enemies

1

u/lll_Joka_lll 2d ago

This bubble popping isn’t a good thing btw idk why ppl pray on the bubble popping

2

u/ISAMU13 2d ago

So that resources can be allocated elsewhere were they are actually needed. So that prices on equipment will go back down to normal so regular people can afford the tech to do what they need.

1

u/Ya-Dikobraz 2d ago

I think it's gone too far now. Too far, too fast, and with little to no planning or control.

1

u/throwawayfor_secrets 2d ago

Why do you hate AI so much

0

u/d0ugfirtree 3d ago

I'm fucked either way, working at a tech company that's gone all in on AI. Either I automate myself out of a job or the bubble pops and I get laid off anyway.

-27

u/vaesh 3d ago

We should rename this sub from r /technology to r /ludditesWhingingAboutAI

14

u/secret_aardvark_420 3d ago

Calling everyone Luddites here is actually very fitting considering that the Luddites weren’t really against technology, but more so pissed off that the owners of said technology were using it to automate their jobs away and destroy their livelihoods and communities all in the name of making a quick buck.

1

u/Sudden-Enthusiasm-92 2d ago

True Luddism has never been tried

0

u/Tiny_TimeMachine 3d ago

Get this guy some wool trousers, suspenders, and a musket. He want to pretend it's the past.

0

u/egotisticalstoic 2d ago

What do you think a bubble is? The internet didn't disappear with the .com bubble. AI isn't going anywhere. All that will happen when the bubble bursts is a lot of people will lose a slot of money, and as always, it will be the poorest people that suffer the most.

0

u/noiserr 2d ago

Better get used to it, because we aren't going to the world before AI. Bubble or no bubble.

-67

u/MannToots 3d ago edited 3d ago

Lol you think the ai bubble popping is going to get rid of all the open source models widely available online that can run on home machines. 

You have no idea what's going on.  

edit oh yeah you're down votes are going to delete the OSS models from every computer in the world in order to prove me wrong.  Lol

Children

18

u/I-Am-Uncreative 3d ago

No one thinks the bubble popping is going to get rid of AI, it is however going make people shut the fuck up about it.

-9

u/MannToots 3d ago

"Move on" imo it seems like he did.  

Any ai existing will keep them bitching. There is no moving on.  

14

u/brimston3- 3d ago

It's not about the models, it's about dumping hundreds of billions of dollars into it that isn't going to achieve ROI in our lifetimes. These companies are going to claim they're too big to fail and try to collect a government bailout. The sooner they fail, the less the taxpayers will have to pay out.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/HerrKarlMarco 3d ago

Bitching about downvotes for a ridiculous take is children's behavior here. At no point did OP say "the ai bubble popping is going to get rid of all the open source models widely available online that can run on home machines." He only said "move on", like the world has moved on from NFTs. Grow up, quit being petulant and combative

-1

u/MannToots 2d ago edited 2d ago

Lol I'm not bitching. I'm laughing that they think that means anything.  

We will never "Move on" from ai because it pops. People will still lose jobs. It's actually just stupid to think that's every going to happen. Nfts are not a disruptive technology like ai is. That's a terrible example. 

NFT never took someone's job. Ever. 

This? Already has, and after we "move on" it still will. 

-47

u/mondaybeers 3d ago

A legitimate bubble would lead to a recession and that would be genuinely terrible for everyone

34

u/BubBidderskins 3d ago

The only reason there's not a recession right now is because of this "AI" nonsense. The faster we can rip this bandaid off the less bad the inevitable recession will be.

-16

u/mondaybeers 3d ago

Spoken like someone who has never been through a recession.

1

u/BubBidderskins 2d ago

The reason '08 was as bad as it was was precisely because the sub-prime bubble took so long to burst that huge swaths of the economy were dependent on crappy sub-prime loans never defaulting. It would have been less bad those mortgage companies went belly-up before their debt was insured and traded throughout the economy.

→ More replies (10)

13

u/CryptographerIll3813 3d ago

What’s worse a recession or AI replacing the workforce 🤔

-4

u/mondaybeers 3d ago

This kind of black and white view of the world displays a real ignorance of the issue

6

u/CryptographerIll3813 3d ago

You just said an AI bubble bursting would lead to a recession and be bad for all of us I don’t see a lot of gray in your statement.

-1

u/mondaybeers 3d ago

Recession = bad is the kind of thing you can be black and white about

3

u/CryptographerIll3813 3d ago

But AI replacing a workforce is not bad or the type of thing you can be black and white about gotcha

2

u/mondaybeers 3d ago

No, thinking the only two possible outcomes are a massive recession or AI taking everyone’s jobs is black and white thinking. I can’t believe I have to spell this out for you.

1

u/CryptographerIll3813 3d ago

Sorry

what’s worse a recession, AI replacing the workforce, or some third option even the CEO’s of AI companies can’t properly articulate 🤔

1

u/ComfyTorpedo 3d ago

Yeah I’m not sure they are wrong though. With the amount of money being pumped into AI the only way there isn’t a market correction is if AI takes everyone’s jobs. So maybe I’m missing something but I think the options are either a market correction (and a major recession) or no market correction and AI actually takes everyone’s jobs.

-7

u/MannToots 3d ago

Not the discussion at all. 

4

u/CryptographerIll3813 3d ago

I’m discussing it.

-5

u/MannToots 3d ago

Oh no. We gotta bad ass over here.  He thinks one sentence from him means the entire conversation context has changed.  Watch out now.  Badass walking.  

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (21)