• esaru@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    If Goldman Sachs said that, than most likely the opposite is true.

    I’m surprised how everyone here believes what that capitalist company is saying, just because it fits their own narrative of AI being useless.

      • esaru@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        There are studies that suggest that the information investment firms publish is not based on what they believe to be true, but on what they want others, including their competitors, believe to be true. And in many cases for serving their investment strategy, it benefits them to publish the opposite of what they believe to be true.

        • Blake (he/him) @beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Intentions aside, it’s just some independent research that anyone can review and critique. If the research is bad then it should be pointed out and won’t be taken seriously, undermining any influence from Goldman Sachs now and in the future

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I mean, ask pretty much anyone familiar with the workings of AI who doesn’t have a vested interest, and they’ll say the same thing. Goldman is right.

      I’d also say that it does have applications, but it’s going to take a moment for all the bullshit artists to move on to the next thing so the grown-ups can work. It’s like graphene research circa-2011.

      They might also say that the moment it does work reliably we should be scared, although it’s fair to say there’s many experts who take the obvious stance.