682
submitted 21 hours ago by misk@sopuli.xyz to c/technology@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] misk@sopuli.xyz 153 points 20 hours ago

Blockchain and crypto were worse. „AI” has some actual use even if it’s way overblown.

[-] OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

I mean, block chain does have some actual uses, definitely more niche than LLMs though.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 50 points 18 hours ago

I'm glad you didn't say NFTs because my Bored Ape will regain and triple its value any day now!

[-] protist@mander.xyz 9 points 15 hours ago

Bro the GME short squeeze is going to hit any day now. We're going to be millionaires bro, you just wait

[-] ICastFist@programming.dev 1 points 6 hours ago

Die almond hands, bro! We're all gonna make it, bro!!! Trust the code, bro!!!!

[-] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 81 points 20 hours ago

Creating a specialized neural net to perform a specific function is cool. Slapping GPT into customer support because you like money is horse shit and I hope your company collapses. But yeah you're right. Blockchain was a solution with basically no problems to fix. Neural nets are a tool that can do a ton of things, but everyone is content to use them as a hammer.

[-] astronaut_sloth@mander.xyz 32 points 18 hours ago

Yes! "AI" defined as only LLMs and the party trick applications is a bubble. AI in general has been around for decades and will only continue to grow.

[-] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 55 points 20 hours ago

Crypto has a legitimate value, you can buy drugs with it.

[-] Graphy@lemmy.world 17 points 19 hours ago

Honestly kinda miss when the drugs I did were illegal. I used to buy weed from this online seller that was really into designer drugs. The amount of time I used to spend on Erowid just to figure out wtf I was about to take.

[-] _bcron_@lemmy.world 17 points 20 hours ago

I'm not even understanding what AI is at this point because there's no delineation between moderately sophisticated algorithms and things that are orders of magnitude more complex.

I mean, if something like multisampling came out today we'd all know how it'd be marketed

[-] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 11 points 19 hours ago

AI is a ridiculous broad term these days. Everybody had been slapping the label on anything. It's kinda like saying "transportation" and it means anything between babies crawling up to wrap drive and teleportation.

[-] RarePossum@programming.dev 4 points 13 hours ago

Because most of them are AI

It's just once AI becomes useful (and not magical), we tend to stop calling it AI unless AI gets more VC money.

It's called the AI effect

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect

[-] slacktoid@lemmy.ml 4 points 19 hours ago

Technically speaking how I differentiate it is:

  • clever algorithm is a good heuristic
  • statistics on steroids is machine learning
  • using a transformer model is AI (for now)
[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 4 points 19 hours ago

The AI buzzword means machine learning. You give it a massive dataset and it identifies correlations.

Regular hand-coded AI is mostly simple state machines.

[-] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 9 points 20 hours ago

Yes. But companies bought into AI way more than they bought into crypto though, in many outlandish and stupid ways. And many AI companies sell it in ways they shouldn't.

As a counterpoint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Blockchain_Corp.

Truly the hardest and most weird buy-in of crypto that happened.

[-] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago

Oh yeah. Kodak too. Gamestop, right? There were a bunch of others.

[-] confusedbytheBasics@lemm.ee 7 points 20 hours ago

Blockchain has many valuable uses. A distributed zero trust ledger is useful. Sadly the finance scammers and the digital beanie baby collectors attracted all the marketing money.

[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 41 points 20 hours ago

And yet, every single company that has ever tried to implement a distributed zero trust ledger into their products and processes has inevitably ditched the idea after releasing that it does not, in fact, provide any useful benefit.

[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 6 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

It is exceptionally useful for the auditing of damn near everything in digital space, as long as shared resources and 3rd parties have access to the blockchain ... which is probably the major reason corporations and politicians don't want anything to do with it.

It'd be a lot harder to hide crimes, fraud, grey business dealings, bribery and illegal donations, sanction violations, secret police slush funds, etc, etc if every event in the entire financial system and supply chain was logged and cryptographically verifiable.

EDIT: NOTE I'm not talking about everyones transactions being in a public ledger (bad). Only enhancing the current system between businesses and orgs so it's exceptionally difficult for any of them to falsify data without the others knowing, as well as having near instant visibility and analytics of the entire market (great for regulators, academics, etc).

A supply-chain wide blockchain could enable individuals to view every raw material that went into every product they consume, down to the location, date — even the exact time in many cases — each was mined, refined, harvested, transported, picked, traded, etc. in a way that no individual corp could hide or falsify dramatically. Each corp and individuals true (embodied energy consumption would be visible to every buyer; developed world politicians and corporations couldn't simply blame China and other developing countries for their own consumption.

[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 23 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

The reason major businesses haven't bothered using distributed blockchains for auditing is because they fundamentally do not actually help in any way with auditing.

At the end of the day, the blockchain is just a ledger. At some point a person has to enter the information into that ledger.

Now, hear me out here, because this is going to be some totally out there craziness that is going to blow your mind... What happens if that person lies?

Like, you've built your huge, complicated system to track every banana you buy from the farm to the grocery store... But what happens if the shipper just sends you a different crate of bananas with the wrong label on them? How does your system solve that? What happens if the company growing your bananas claims to use only ethical practices but in reality their workers are effectively slaves? How does a blockchain help fix that?

The data in a system is only as good as your ability to verify it. Verifying the integrity of the data within systems was largely a solved problem long before distributed blockchains came along, and was rarely if ever the primary avenue for fraud. It's the human components of these systems where fraud can most easily occur. And distributed blockchains do absolutely nothing to solve that.

[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Counterpoint, having a currency where every token is tied into its own transaction history might be unpopular with large businesses for other reasons. Like maybe they don't want to be that transparent or accountable. The FBI have made public statements about how much easier it is to track criminals who used Crypto.

Your opinion seems to contradict reality.

[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

This is a very poorly considered argument. Even if we suppose that everything you've said is true, the existence of a second plausible explanation doesn't invalidate the first. You've not actually offered any reason why any of what I said is wrong, you just said "X is possible, therefore Y cannot be true."

Also, I want to note that this particular digression wasn't about cryptocurrency at all. The point I was responding to was a claim that blockchains had uses other than as currencies. So you really might want to step back a bit and consider what you think is being discussed here, and what you're actually trying to say.

[-] Thrashy@lemmy.world 13 points 19 hours ago

The idea has merit, in theory -- but in practice, in the vast majority of cases, having a trusted regulator managing the system, who can proactively step in to block or unwind suspicious activity, turns out to be vastly preferable to the "code is law" status quo of most blockchain implementations. Not to mention most potential applications really need a mechanism for transactions to clear in seconds, rather than minutes to days, and it'd be preferable if they didn't need to boil the oceans dry in the process of doing so.

If I was really reaching, I could maybe imagine a valid use case for say, a hypothetical, federated open source game that needed to have a trusted way for every node to validate the creation and trading of loot and items, that could serve as a layer of protection against cheating nodes duping items, for instance. But that's insanely niche, and for nearly every other use case a database held by a trusted entity is faster, simpler, safer, more efficient, and easier to manage.

this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
682 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

58810 readers
4180 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS