> What's scary isn't that these models are so good they'll replace us, but that despite how limited they are, someone will make the decision to replace humans anyway.
is this a real threat? if a system/company decides to replace a human with something that is less capable wouldn't that just result in it becoming irrelevant/bankrupt as it is replaced by other companies doing the same thing the more efficient (and in this case traditional) way?
Has any company ever truly believed that outsourcing their customer service to India would improve the experience for their customers? No, but they did it anyway, because it cut costs. AI can be obviously worse than humans and still put them out of work, because GPUs are much cheaper than people.
Not necessarily. Imagine a health insurance provider even partially automating their claim (dis)approval process - it could be both lucrative and devastating.
A similar issue arises with health insurance. Using AI to evaluate claims is a huge efficiency play and you don’t have much ability to fight it if something goes wrong. And even if you can these decisions can be life or death in the short term and human intervention usually takes time.
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at re: hype.
While there is undoubtedly a lot of hype around these tools right now, that hype is based on a pretty major leap in technology that has fundamentally altered the landscape going forward. There are some great use cases that legitimize some of the hype.
As far as concrete examples, see the sibling comment with the anecdote regarding health insurance denial. There are also portions of the tech industry focused on rolling these tools out in business environments. They're publicly reporting their earnings, and discussing the role AI is playing in major business deals.
Look at players like Salesforce, ServiceNow, Atlassian, etc. They're all rapidly rolling out various AI capabilities into their existing customer bases. They have giant sales forces all actively pushing these capabilities. They also sell to governments. Hype or not, it adds up to real world outcomes.
Public statements by Musk about his intention to use AI also come to mind, and he's repeatedly shown a willingness to break things in the pursuit of his goals.
worse for the consumer or the provider? if the llm is going to fundamentally do a "worse" job no matter what the incentive (whatever that is, maximising profit, maximising claims, whatever that may be) we will end up with the "more efficient" system in charge
the counterpoint to this (which i guess is the tenet of the original comment?) is that hype can shadow good judgement for a short period of time?
The current admin is unlikely to get the DOJ to do anything, so that leaves you trying to sue them yourselves, and they can afford more expensive lawyers and to gum up the proceedings until you go bankrupt or give up.
If you haven't already signed away your right to sue with an arbitration clause.
class action. Someone sues on behalf of all customers of the insurance company saying the insurance policy is fraudulent. The company is executing policies based on ai or rolling the dice. The insurance company owes all customers balance paid on policy and all costs associated with attempting to use fraudulent policy.
reminder that propane burns into CO2 - this process doesn't actually unlock any new energy source, it merely just reverses a reaction that has already taken place (presumably with electricity or some other form of energy)
this isn't some kind of miracle infinite energy source to solve climate change woes, more like an interesting way to convert one usable form of energy (electricity) into another (a petrochemical)
But this is perfect. A complete reversion of the reaction, without any additional interesting inputs or intermediate stages.
You can imagine a closed-cycle, isolated "battety" that discharges into sparkling water, and charges back into fuel and oxygen.
This is exactly the miracle solution that can turn CO₂ back into fuel, which can be burned again in existing ICEs and gas turbines, then turned into fuel again, powered by solar electricity.
Collecting and concentrating the CO₂ is going to be a task in itself, but things like power plants or steelmaking furnaces offer high-concentration, pre-heated CO₂.
that would be cool, but wouldn't something simpler like electrolysis of water into hydrogen/oxygen work much better?
I haven't the effort to do the math, but it would require less steps, less complexity, and less cutting edge catalysts with unknown lifetimes
It's hugely inefficient, so it requires more solar power.
Hydrogen is hard to store and use; unlike propane, it penetrates through plastics and even metals. Hydrogen is a good rocket fuel if you need top performance and cost is no object.
Propane is very convenient, and can be reused across the existing LNG infrastructure.
Hydrogen is very difficult to use as a direct fuel source. This recent video gives a good overview of all the challenges a hydrogen engine has to overcome: https://youtu.be/DGL5g91KwLA
The value lies in the fact that we already have a lot of infrastructure (including storage) that uses propane.
By switching from fossil propane to this green propane we can indirectly 'electrify' entire swaths of energy consumption.
It's scary to me how good this is. Because if it works, we can effectively continue as normal. Which is not to be expected, and might cause us to slack off since the pressure is gone.
It would work well with wind and solar as energy storage, or even tidal or geothermal. Making it great for storing power from variable power systems. Propane is extremely easy to distribute.
chromebooks can boot from other sources in developer mode, pressing ctrl + u on startup brings up a generic SeaBIOS when certain flags are enabled from crosh
A lot of the comments seem to repeat the "just like how GPT is using our content we created" sort of reasoning - whether that you agree with that or not, I don't see how that justifies the bill for your usage being out of someone else's (not openAIs) pocket?
is this a real threat? if a system/company decides to replace a human with something that is less capable wouldn't that just result in it becoming irrelevant/bankrupt as it is replaced by other companies doing the same thing the more efficient (and in this case traditional) way?