This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I was browsing through the news today and I found an interesting article about the current state of AI for corporate productivity.
MIT report: 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing
There seems to have been a feeling over the last few years that generative AI was going to gut white collar jobs the same way that offshoring gutted blue collar jobs in the 1980s and 90s, and that it was going to happen any day now.
If this study is trustworthy, the promise of AI appears to be less concrete and less imminent than many would hope or fear.
I've been thinking about why that might be, and I've reached three non-exclusive but somewhat unrelated thoughts.
The first is that Gartner hype cycle is real. With almost every new technology, investors tend to think that every sigmoid curve is an exponential curve that will asymptotically approach infinity. Few actually are. Are we reaching the point where the practical gains available in each iteration our current models are beginning to bottom out? I'm not deeply plugged in to the industry, nor the research, nor the subculture, but it seems like the substantive value increase per watt is rapidly diminishing. If that's true, and there aren't any efficiency improvements hiding around the next corner, it seems like we may be entering the through of disillusionment soon.
The other thought that occurs to me is that people seem to be absolutely astounded by the capabilities of LLMs and similar technology.
Caveat: My own experience with LLMs is that it's like talking to a personable schizophrenic from a parallel earth, so take my ramblings with a grain of salt.
It almost seems like LLMs exist in an area similar to very early claims of humanoid automata, like the mechanical Turk. It can do things that seem human, and as a result, we naturally and unconsciously ascribe other human capabilities to them while downplaying their limits. Eventually, the discrepancy grows to great - usually when somebody notices the cost.
On the third hand, maybe it is a good technology and 95% of companies just don't know how to use it?
Does anyone have any evidence that might lend weight to any of these thoughts, or discredit them?
This seems like an extremely odd metric to support the argument that you are making.
At the very least, to use the 5% success rate to understand AI's revolutionary potential, we need to know what the average value unlocked in those 5% of successes is, and the average cost across the whole dataset. If the costs are minimal, and the returns are 100x costs for the successes, then even if only 5% succeed every single company should be making that bet.
On top of that, what's the timeline function? When were these programs launched? How long have they been going on? Are the older programs more successful than the the newer ones? If most of the 5% are over a year old, while most of the 95% are less than a year old, we might be judging unripe tomatoes here.
Then, add to that, there's value in having institutional knowledge and expertise about AI. By having employees who understand AI, even if the pilot program fail, they'll see opportunities to implement it in the future and understand how to integrate it into their workflow.
It just seems odd to declare AI dead based off this data.
I may have miscommunicated here. I don't think it's dead. I think it'll be useful on a much longer time horizon than was predicted, and not in a way that we expected. The slope of enlightenment is next.
Fair, I probably misinterpreted your post.
But still, I don't even know if that data said it isn't useful! If I published an article telling you that I ran the numbers, and the 40-1 bets on UFC fights hit 5% of the time, that would be a huge gambling tip telling you to bet on the longshots.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link