586
Generative AI Is an Engineering Disaster. A shockingly inefficient trillion-dollar project.
(www.theatlantic.com)
this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2026
586 points (97.0% liked)
Technology
87853 readers
2317 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"Generative" is a misnomer. It will never generate anything new, it can only regurgitate existing ideas based on patterns that already exist. It's very good at pattern recognition and summarizing, but lacks the ability to form a distinct new idea.
It will never generate something novel. Whether it will generate something "new" depends on your definition of "new," which is a little more ambiguous than "novel."
Sorry if I'm being too pedantic.
Nope, pedant away. That's a better way to convey what I was trying to say. Thanks.
Sure, but then neither will most people.
Shhh... Let the haters hate. Hate is all they have. It's the only thing that makes them feel superior.
It's only good at summarizing things which have coherence to its training set. Any ability to summarize input outside of its training is accidental.
Yeah, but it's got that in common with a frighteningly large number of people...
See management, marketing, streaming, social media, etc.....
If that's your reasoning then genes and genetics fall into the same bucket.
That's an interesting thought. Genetics is largely a mixing and copying process with occasional "hallucinations" in the form of transcription errors. Most of these errors result in the termination of the hallucinated code. Hallucinations that damage the termination process result in cancer. In the larger sense of evolution, there's a robust external "review" process. Environmental pressures, predation, and resource availability weed out most of the mistakes and selects the results most likely to succeed.
Well, no.
not even close.