this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2025
37 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

23143 readers
204 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net
replaceable@hexbear.net
VILenin@hexbear.net
SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net
khizuo@hexbear.net
Sulvy@hexbear.net
Wakmrow@hexbear.net
37
What is the argument that we’re NOT in an AI bubble? (hexbear.net)
submitted 5 days ago by CleverOleg@hexbear.net to c/askchapo@hexbear.net
37 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Part of me feels the fact that EVERYONE is saying that there’s a huge AI bubble makes me wonder if there’s actually a possibility there isn’t an AI bubble. Because I was around for the dot com and GFC bubbles and no one (not really) saw those coming. Also, China is pretty much doing everything right these days, and they seem to believe in AI too.

And I’m not against AI in any and all forms. Like, I think there’s huge potential in translating foreign languages. I think it would be cool if people could talk in their native languages but have AI translate things perfectly - which I understand is something AI can do. There are some simple functions in my job (like searching through and summarizing things from our very massive list of policies). But even thinking about the absolute best case scenarios for AI, I can see how the current expectations are even close to what the reality can be.

So what is the argument that we’re not in a bubble, even if we don’t actually believe it?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Erika3sis@hexbear.net 20 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

have AI translate things perfectly - which I understand is something AI can do.

Neural machine translation is what Google's used since 2016, and there's only so much that more training material + adjustments to the algorithms can do for the fundamental limits of the technology. Neural machine translation is of course incredibly helpful and I'm glad it exists, and it certainly has improved over the past decade, but I also think that "AI" is just a marketing buzzword making this old and established technology look brand new and revolutionary.

So my own personal greatest hopes for "AI" are facial and vocal deepfakes.

[–] PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net 5 points 5 days ago

It is also worth noting that this type of language model can run on spare CPU cycles on a limited PC (LibreTranslate), vs. the shit they're doing with these LLMs that require more electricity to operate than New York City.