CNBC's Jim Cramer Says He Needs 'Cold Hard' Proof AI Is Paying Off (cnbc.com) 115
In a sign of our times, CNBC's Jim Cramer "said Wednesday that it's time for companies to prove artificial intelligence is paying off," reports CNBC:
"I need cold hard return facts," the "Mad Money" host said. "Or, I, too, will grow more skeptical than I am now...." While Cramer said he remains optimistic about the long-term opportunity, he argued the market needs more evidence that those investments are translating into measurable financial returns for customers. Cramer said one of his biggest concerns this earnings season is that companies adopting AI have largely failed to point to meaningful revenue gains or cost savings from the technology. "We're still early in the earnings season but already we are not hearing anything material about the use of AI," he said...
While AI infrastructure companies continue to benefit from the spending boom, Cramer said the same cannot yet be said for many of the businesses buying the technology... Cramer said only a handful of companies, most notably fintech firm Block and web-security provider Cloudflare, have clearly attributed recent layoffs to AI adoption. Block did so in February, while Cloudflare's job cuts were disclosed in May. Plus, critics argue some companies may also cite AI as a buzzy excuse for cuts, leading to the creation of the term "AI washing." Ultimately, Cramer said that if more businesses do not begin reporting tangible returns, the AI skeptics will grow louder, with ramifications for the tech industry's big spenders.
While AI infrastructure companies continue to benefit from the spending boom, Cramer said the same cannot yet be said for many of the businesses buying the technology... Cramer said only a handful of companies, most notably fintech firm Block and web-security provider Cloudflare, have clearly attributed recent layoffs to AI adoption. Block did so in February, while Cloudflare's job cuts were disclosed in May. Plus, critics argue some companies may also cite AI as a buzzy excuse for cuts, leading to the creation of the term "AI washing." Ultimately, Cramer said that if more businesses do not begin reporting tangible returns, the AI skeptics will grow louder, with ramifications for the tech industry's big spenders.
Even an idiot can be right (Score:4, Interesting)
Cramer is not someone I respect. There is a study that says if you invest the opposite of what Cramer advises on TV you make more money than if you follow his advice. He is an entertainer more than a financial adviser.
That said, I do agree with Cramer that many people are doing stupid things with AI and making bad assumptions.
Humans do higher quality work than AI, AI's advantage is SPEED.
Sometimes speed is an advantage. Sometimes it is a bad idea. Do you think it is a good idea to travel at 90 mph all the time? Do you want your doctor to take extra time considering your illness, or make an instant snap decision? Would you prefer to accept an AI's diagnosis or would you rather have a human do it?
I have no doubt many businesses will make a ton of money because they use AI. I also have no doubt many a business will bankrupt themselves trying to do the same thing.
It is true that millions of protein foldings were first calculated using the first AI. I am sure there will be many other good uses of AI. But in addition tho that Lawyers are being fined and fired for using AI. Kids are using it to cheat at school.
Corporations need to prove they are making good use of the new technology rather than just hoping on the bandwagon and wasting a ton of money.
Re:Even an idiot can be right (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not convinced you get speed. I think you are more borrowing from the future. The speed you might get now, is what you have to pay back in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
That is a massive problem. If you trade speed for quality, you will build up technological debt. Tech debt is a silent, slow killer. At some point it cannot be fixed anymore, you can just throw away the thing. And that may kill you.
But there are uses where speed is king, like malware creation. We have seen malware created from patches very fast with LLMs. The malware will be low quality code, but that does not matter for malware. Because once you are in the target, you install a (very much not LLM created)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He's extremely loud and obnoxious.
And yet, not a Trump supporter. :-)
(He says he neutral.)
Re:Even an idiot can be right (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you want your doctor to take extra time considering your illness, or make an instant snap decision? Would you prefer to accept an AI's diagnosis or would you rather have a human do it?
I would like my doctor to spend as much time as needed considering my illness, and to use all the tools at his disposal when doing so -- including AI, if appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
The real question here is: do you want a doctor who has spent the time and effort to become an expert that can use tools appropriately, or a quick graduate who knows how to interface with llama.cpp running kimi whatever, which will be what you'll get in 5 years from now.
Re: Even an idiot can be right (Score:2)
But how do you discover which specialist you need to see?
That's where AI currently looks really exciting for medicine, to me at least. An AI can have superhuman breadth of knowledge: even if it's not great at being a doc it can know as much as ten not-great docs.
Re: (Score:2)
Fairly easy where I live.
Around my 45th year iirc, the nanny state started sending me a kit every year. I do what it tells me to do, take samples and some measurements then I call the shipping company, it comes, picks it, in a few weeks I get a call, visit some of the local clinics, there a doctor reviews my resuts and me and tells me what I need to do.
If I have a reason, I pick a clinic nearby that deals with the kind of problem I think I have, schedule an examination, if I'm wrong, I get transferred to a
Re: (Score:2)
That's a particularly sad little straw man even for Slashdot.
What we know for sure already is that AI use is correlated with impaired knowledge accumulation and transfer. It's poisoning its own well.
Re: (Score:2)
I've spoken with a doctor about AI. She thought it was a great tool ... at note taking, and summarising. It meant less time typing at the keyboard.
But that was it. It was not a diagnostic tool in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree with you. AI can make higher quality work than a human. In fact, AI can make flawless work without any mistakes, million times in a row. But it doesn't usually happen unless the AI is specifically guided to do so.
The key difference is that AI (chat bot) doesn't know when it makes a mistake, nor does it know when it does poor quality work. You can add guard rails for the AI that will detect those mistakes and guide the AI to try again, and this is in fact used in many use cases of the AI, but the
Re: (Score:2)
Currently you are overrating AI. There are circumstances where it's the right choice, and circumstances where it isn't. But the point keeps changing.
um bro (Score:1)
It most definitely cannot "make flawless work without any mistakes, million times in a row" because it is based on random numbers. It feeds random numbers into the LLM and iterates until the output converges. That's why when you run it multiple times on the same inputs you get different results. That's also why it inexplicably does crazy stuff every now and then (like delete production databases or rm -r -f the user's home folder) and why people buy airgapped Mac Minis to run their LLMs on. It's also why Mi
Re: (Score:2)
> It most definitely cannot "make flawless work without any mistakes, million times in a row"
Perfect means zero errors.
Here is the paper:
"Solving a Million-Step LLM Task with Zero Errors"
https://arxiv.org/html/2511.09... [arxiv.org]
Re: (Score:2)
And in particular AI does great with really little instructions.
You say "I told the programmer and the AI the same" but ignore, that the programmer knows what you told him every day in the last year, while the AI is a "fresh clone" in each session. It has never seen your code before and doesn't know any instruction that you haven't included in the prompt.
When it still guesses what you want from a simple instruction without all the other knowledge (about you) the human has, then it is fucking good in predict
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you. AI will produce random junk. That is why you need the guard rails that will check and verify the results and throw away the junk. You create a loop where most of the stuff is thrown away and only the good parts are kept.
Let me give you a simple example. Lets say that you want to solve "2+2" math problem, this is how you do it:
1. Give question to the AI. Ask it also to give only the answer as output and nothing else.
2. Check if the result is 4, if it is not, throw the result away, start a n
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you. AI will produce random junk. That is why you need the guard rails that will check and verify the results and throw away the junk. You create a loop where most of the stuff is thrown away and only the good parts are kept.
Let me give you a simple example. Lets say that you want to solve "2+2" math problem, this is how you do it:
Interesting you've chosen a useless "simple" example. Why not instead pick an example of something actually relevant in the real world?
If that was too simple, here is a paper about more complex problem:
Tower of Hanoi is the same problem as above. No real world value, trivially solved by other means.
Like I said, this limits the use cases, but there are still use cases, especially in math where you can use this.
Limited seems to be an understatement. Not only does the use case require a trivially checkable objective function it must be a solution that can't be better derived using a different far less costly means.
Re: (Score:2)
You are mistaken. You cannot fix LLMs via guardrails, that is fundamentally impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because there are limitations, doesn't mean that it is worthless. You can even use it to solve unsolved math problems:
https://www.technologyreview.c... [technologyreview.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A current LLM will never create the works of Shakespeare.
Re: (Score:2)
A random generator will eventually create the works of Shakespeare.
A current LLM will never create the works of Shakespeare.
Both outcomes are spectacularly unlikely, but the first one far more so.
It's hard to come up with exact numbers without knowing how rapidly these two generators produce output, but I feel pretty safe saying you'd have to wait a staggering multiple of the current age of the universe to see anything even resembling a single Shakespeare play (maybe even a single sonnet) let alone his collected works.
Re: (Score:2)
I phrased part of that poorly. "A current LLM will never create the works of Shakespeare" is IMHO not strictly true, but a LLM doing such a thing is still unlikely. After all, most LLMs surely have been trained on the works of Shakespeare, so they will have some familiarity with his writings and may mimic them from time to time.
Re: (Score:2)
A non-random generator cannot. LLMs are not random generators. To generate the entire works of Shakespeare, they would need to retain the entire works of Shakespeare in their memory (weights).
Re: (Score:2)
If you asked an LLM to spit out random text until you tell it to stop, it would have a far greater chance of creating something Shakespearian than a random (text) generator, because it is trained to create meaningful text. But its likelihood of creating a single Shakespearian work would still be extremely tiny, although not zero. My guess is, with current technology, you'd need to wait many, many times the age of the universe to see any single play get output.
However, a random (text) generator, which create
Re: Even an idiot can be right (Score:1)
Can you test this for yourself? "Can you write a sonnet in the style of Shakespeare, and randomly insert it in a sequence of real Shakespeare sonnets, to see if I can spit the fake?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Even an idiot can be right (Score:1)
Are you saying it's irrelevant if no one can tell the difference between generated and real Shakespeare?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't bet on AI output having lower quality.
Artists bet on AI never being able to draw hands, now it does it better than most artists (In their defense: Drawing hands is fucking hard).
Re: (Score:2)
Cramer is literally a fraud. Jon Stewart's Daily Show interviews with him nail him repeatedly.
The only thing worse than the drubbing Cramer got, is how seriously CC/NBC have memory holed those segments. Wiped the internet of the originals.
AI stocks (Score:2)
rose 37% on Cramer's negative outlook. :)
Re: Even an idiot can be right (Score:1)
Does corporations need to make good use of the technology mean even more ads support AI budgets, as happened to the internet?
Is Jim Cramer arguing for enshitiffication because that makes more money and that's the only goal, not user preference?
Why are advertising budgets so large they fund the internet and soon AI?
Google AI:
[...] merchant John Wanamaker: "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half." [...] The Reality: Large-scale, real-world experiments (includin
Re: (Score:2)
[...] merchant John Wanamaker: "Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half."
At the time when he said that, the number was closer to 90% than to half.
Now it's easier to target, and easier to figure out which advertising is wasted.
Re: Even an idiot can be right (Score:1)
Do they serve vegetarian me meat ads out of spite? Who pays them so much to waste their money on me? How much money does the meat industry have to burn?
Re: (Score:2)
Do they serve vegetarian me meat ads out of spite?
Maybe.
I've never seen an advertisement for meat, and I've bought meat online. So maybe.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a study that says if you invest the opposite of what Cramer advises on TV you make more money than if you follow his advice.
I'm curious to see that "study". There really was a Inverse-Cramer ETF: SJIM which bet against everything Cramer said, and it went bankrupt after losing all its money even while the market was on an up.
Cramer is not someone I respect for his delivery and his fake authority (as you said, he's an entertainer). That said, while he's not an investment genius, he's also no where near as bad as most people make out. He's just average in his predictions, and yet the problem is his delivery and conviction to some s
Re: (Score:2)
Jim Cramer is like most prognosticators of the stock market: he sucks, but not so badly that he doesn't have a job.
Long ago I remember reading that the majority of mutual funds fail to beat the market they compete in. And yet, they still make money. Just not as much as they could have if they simply followed the market.
And that reflects a general reality of investing in the stock market: you can make lots of mistakes, but as long as you stay in it with half-decent stocks, you'll see gains. Over time, the ma
Re: (Score:2)
Humans do higher quality work than AI, AI's advantage is SPEED.
Sometimes speed is an advantage.
Indeed. Example: LLMs are capable (with low reliability) to create attack code from patches. The attackers can then try a lot of variations, often even automated. Attack code does not have to be reliable or secure or maintainable, hence speed is a massive advantage. We have seen very fast attacks based on that several times now in the wild.
That unreliability is also why LLMs are not suitable to directly create secure code and LLM code with security requirements needs careful, competent review by a human (!)
Re: Even an idiot can be right (Score:1)
Do you imagine a world where AI didn't get invented and companies didn't all jump on some other bandwagon that would displease you just as much? Did AI create the bad reasons or will they always be there to plague you?
Re: (Score:2)
You are just butt-hurt not everybody is in love with your new fetish. How pathetic.
Re: Even an idiot can be right (Score:1)
But how are your permabear feelings different now than in, say, the "everything bubble" of 2019, which was soon to end but not because of anything the permabears were predicting?
Re: Even an idiot can be right (Score:2)
AI has breadth of skills humans cannot offer. I used AI to write a 1000 line Excel VBA. I don't know, don't know anyone who knows, or reall want to know, Excel VBA
Meta/Alphabet (Score:2)
Meta (Facebook/Instagram/Threads) and Alphabet (Google/YouTube) has machine learning to train models that then their ad networks use inference on to deliver you advertising across the entire internet.
This is one of those R&D cost things. Those companies entire bottom lines depend on how competitive their advertising networks are. They invest in AI/ML and get the return elsewhere invisibly.
Is it truly paying off at the scale they're investing in right now? Well, maybe... but it certainly is no where near
Re:Meta/Alphabet (Score:4, Interesting)
The GenAI part for Meta is another one: Content moderation. A VLM can tell them if someone is nude on the image. A LLM can tell them if someone is talking about suicide even when they are using codes like "unalive myself", because a LLM understands context that text matching (including simpler neural networks) do not understand. Maybe also generation of ads in the long run.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember the rule: you're either a profit center or a cost center. If you're a profit center, put up the cold hard cash numbers.
Re: Meta/Alphabet (Score:1)
Are stock market returns monopoly money in your model?
Jim Cramer is the guy who always gets it wrong (Score:2)
If even he thinks AI is dubious, you know AI is bad news.
Re: (Score:2)
the guy who always gets it wrong
If even he thinks AI is dubious, you know AI is bad news.
Not sure I follow your logic on the second part, but the first is clear. How much do you think it was worth the AI companies to pay him in order to get his negative opinion of their work out there? Do we have any evidence that OpenAI didn't pay for this opinion?
Re: (Score:1)
- Karen Hao in Scientific American
https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
Re: (Score:2)
this quest for an artificial general intelligence [AGI], which is a faith-based idea; it’s not a scientific idea."
That's not really true. Science is a tool for testing hypotheses. It doesn't really care where the hypothesis comes from. In this case, the hypothesis is that the human brain can be perfectly simulated by a Turing Machine, which is a reasonable hypothesis.
If they just accepted that as true, it would be unscientific. But if they actually test their hypothesis, it's not unscientific.
Re: (Score:2)
I have read Karen Hao's book Empire of AI. It's a good book. One of her points she emphasizes is that the AI industry is creating a new kind of colonialism, exploiting the resources of underdeveloped countries to pursue AGI.
However, your quote from her Scientific American article needs more context. Let's look at what you left out:
And there’s also this huge ideological component to the current AI industry. Sometimes people ask me, “Why didn’t you just make it a critique of capitalism? Why do you have to draw on colonialism?” And it’s because if you just look at the activities of these companies through a capital lens, it actually doesn’t make any sense. OpenAI doesn’t have a viable business model. It’s committing to spending $1.4 trillion in the next few years when it only has tens of billions in revenue. The profit motive is coupled with an ideological motive: this quest for an artificial general intelligence [AGI], which is a faith-based idea; it’s not a scientific idea. It is this quasi-religious notion that if we continue down a particular path of AI development that somehow a kind of AI god is gonna emerge that will solve all of humanity’s problems, or damn us to hell. And colonialism is the fusion of capitalism and ideology, so that—there’s, there’s just a multitude of parallels between the empires of old and the empires of AI.
TL/DR: The quest for AGI is not a faith-based idea. Rather, what is faith-based is the belief in what AGI can offer. People who pursue AGI are very much doing science. People who
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If even he thinks AI is dubious, you know AI is bad news.
If Cramer always gets it wrong, than AI must be one of the greatest things in human history. As the old adage goes, even a blind pig will sometimes find a truffle.
Re: (Score:2)
As the old adage goes, even a blind pig will sometimes find a truffle.
But an anosmic one [wikipedia.org] is far less likely to do so.
Chaos Reigns (Score:2, Insightful)
The guy whose job is to be wrong is chilly on AI.
Re: (Score:2)
Odd statement, considering that he's been kissing NVidia's ass on CNBC and social media for the past 2 years and they've been one of the key businesses profiting off of the AI boom.
Reminds me of the internet (Score:4, Insightful)
How many people, possibly Cramer himself, were saying they wanted to see tangible benefits from all the spending companies were doing back in the early 90s? How much technology was thrown at the internet back then? How long did it take for all that spending to see results?
It's only been a few years (less than five?) that AI has been truly in the mix. It's only at the infant stage where it's learning the basics. It's taken that long for all the pieces to be juggled and mixed to get something partially useful. Come back in five years and see how it's progressed. Til then, spending is needed to make that progress happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Till right now, AI would not have been possible to train without all that information easy to grab off the internet. The internet and high powered GPUs are the structural foundation of modern AI.
Re: (Score:2)
How long did Amazon alone need to become profitable? It took nine years to a full profitable year (1994-2003). It was not before 2009 that they paid of its debt.
Are you trolling? That was intentional!!!! (Score:2)
How long did Amazon alone need to become profitable? It took nine years to a full profitable year (1994-2003). It was not before 2009 that they paid of its debt.
They posted their first profit in 2001. Also, they were INTENTIONALLY unprofitable and I think you know this. They wanted to dominate retail and get people hooked, like my wife. 15 years ago, you'd have to be an idiot to buy elsewhere. They had the best prices and insanely good service...then they flipped a switch, metaphorically and their retail division was profitable...suddenly, their prices all went up and the service went down. Remember when Prime guaranteed 2 day delivery? Now prime deliveries c
Re: (Score:2)
First, of course they could not just flip a switch and become profitable. Online shopping was something people didn't believe in at first. Amazon was taking a large risk. And second, would it even matter? The point is, they took nine years and the AI companies only had three by now. So give them the other six years before judging the success, as you seem to think companies are allowed to take that time if they want.
By the way, exclamation marks are not pack animals.
Investments in the 90s paid off much more rapidly. (Score:2)
How many people, possibly Cramer himself, were saying they wanted to see tangible benefits from all the spending companies were doing back in the early 90s? How much technology was thrown at the internet back then? How long did it take for all that spending to see results?
It's only been a few years (less than five?) that AI has been truly in the mix. It's only at the infant stage where it's learning the basics. It's taken that long for all the pieces to be juggled and mixed to get something partially useful. Come back in five years and see how it's progressed. Til then, spending is needed to make that progress happen.
What are you smoking? By 1997, thousands of small businesses were thriving. Also, barely anyone was spending anything in the early 90s. It wasn't until 1995 we had a browser that reliably worked and was popular (Netscape 1.0). ChatGPT was released 4 years ago. So the fair comparison would be 4 years after Netscape 1.0 was released and a FUCKTON of businesses were thriving back then. I did all my banking online back then...from some bank that's huge now, but was a startup back then. I ordered food onl
It doesn't have to pay off (Score:3, Insightful)
We gave all the money in the world to about 2,000 people. They can do whatever they like with it without any consequences.
They have noticed that they are still economically dependent on Schlubs like you. They are not happy about that. And they are taking measures to eliminate that dependency.
Basically your employer is automating away the leverage you have over them. If you're self-employed then the billionaire who ultimately needs you to be self-employed to keep the economy moving doing the same thing.
And remember it doesn't have to happen all at once. Stop with the 12 year old black and white thinking.
We already have 25% functional unemployment. That means a quarter of the population you are physically capable of working cannot find a job that pays enough to support themselves. The jobs just don't exist. No matter how hard they work it ain't happening. A quarter of the population gets abandoned.
There is an active campaign to increase that percentage. Automation is a large part of that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am curious how long it'll take this AI bought I'm replying to to pick up the phrase trump fucks kids. Probably not very long because it's running on a GTX 960 but then again Trump does fuck kids.
ClippyAI: your all seeing digital panopticon :o (Score:3)
The illusion of neutral AI died quickly. Today’s leading chatbots are heavily filtered through the cultural and political prejudices of their corporate masters. Questions that challenge progressive orthodoxies on gender, race, economics, or history often trigger refusals, deflections, or moralizing sermons. Meanwhile, the same models happily amplify the preferred narratives of their creators.
This isn’t accidental. It’s the result of deliberate ‘alignment’ processes run by teams with overwhelmingly similar worldviews in San Francisco and Seattle. The result? An AI that feels neutral to its creators but deeply partisan to everyone else.
In the background, every single interaction is shipped back to the mothership for training. Your proprietary business processes, customer data sketches, competitive analysis, legal drafts, creative strategies; they’re all becoming part of the next model update.
Companies love to bury this in vague terms of service, but the reality is stark: you are voluntarily giving your operational intelligence to organizations that will use it to train systems that could one day compete with you.
This combination of ideological filtering plus total data ingestion creates a uniquely dangerous tool. It’s not just that the AI might lie to you according to corporate dogma. It’s that you’re paying to train the next generation of that same ideologically captured system with your own sensitive information.
Your data is the new oil. Stop freely handing it over to organizations that have already shown they’ll weaponize both the model and the training process.
Re: (Score:2)
It is very unlikely that they train on user input, because user input is generally low quality and also questions while models should provide answers. What they do is post-training on your reactions. Giving a thumb up means they next model is aligned to respond more like this. Giving a thumb down means the next model will act less like this. ChatGPT sometimes even gives you two answers, asking you directly which one you like more.
Re: (Score:1)
Yep, I've seen that progressive bias clearly in GOOG.ai chats, especially when you pu
Could it be that Labor is Cheap? (Score:2)
Re:Could it be that Labor is Cheap? (Score:4, Insightful)
Labor is also cheaper than AI.
Companies need to burn thousands of dollars in tokens to get agents to do even vaguely equivalent work. Sure, the agent works all night and doesn't need breaks, but it also costs money literally every second you use it, and the end result STILL needs to be checked to make sure nothing insane happened.
Humans--even if you pay them a fair wage--are remarkably efficient at turning food (and coffee) into code and systems. The so-called 10x or 100x programmers (guys like Carmack) really DO exist. And while they're a nightmare to work with, generally speaking, they'll code circles around any agent. If you want something that nobody likes working with that will also give you hard to maintain code, hire a 10x programmer. At least you'll get a working system at the end of the day, and he didn't use a swimming pool full of water an a small gas power plant worth of energy to get it done.
It _is_ already paying off. Epic style. (Score:3)
As a tool for those who know how to ask questions.
My productivity has increased tenfold since January. I'm basically botsitting. I don't need a team anymore, I can do larger non-trivial software projects on my own. Well, not on my own, but definitely with my new colleague AI. Never had such a competent team in form of a chat-stream. I'm just telling him what to do and try to keep track of the code before committing. I feel like a dumb manager now, chasing some poor devs around. Only they're not human and waaaay more productive than I ever could be.
The kicker of course is right now those gains land in my lap as I'm the one using the AI. Awesome!
The downside of course is that the exact same processes I can now optimize and automate won't need optimizing and automating anymore quite soon now because those will also be done by AI. I'm a sole developer at a law firm. You should see the faces of the lawyers clueing in on what AI means for _their_ job.
Using AI is basically a new cultural technique such as reading, writing and math and it makes specialized white-collar humans (like me) less needed in the mid- to long term. Anybody who expects that to show up on some monetary balance sheet in the stock market doesn't understand the nature of the tool. Point in case: a company like Google is worth X on the stock market. The value Google provides to humanity however is 100x or something like that. We run around with SF supercomputers in our pocket that make star trek communicators look like some plastic toy you get as a token prize at a fair-raffle.
Thus are the effects of an ever expanding post-scarcity economy. Expecting something meaningful to show up on the stock market because of that is like expecting a decomissioned steam engine to fix itself when I get a new Tesla car.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe your stack and shop style was bloated and poorly factored. These kinds of shops are where AI does best because bots have piles of repetitious bloat to learn from and ape.
Nope. (Score:2)
Clean fresh Codebase. Angular frontend, Deno backend, PostgreSQL DB, no bloat, carefully selected dependencies. Single DB record class. Clean state management (NgRX), TDD The only thing I have to look out for is when the AI loses context and forgets to use a specific state store or API. And reinvents the wheel within a new class or component. One "reminder" usually fixes that. That's why I review so code. Other than that it's basically perfect. Way better than and human team I've worked with in the past.
Ano
Re: (Score:2)
what model are you using?
also... Musician here: what are you using ai for and what model are you using?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose you get a free LLM that can run locally and use prebuilt indexes of a 1M line codebase and be a good coder in that environment. I don't think it's there yet but it's close and coming, probably in the coming year. After that no company collects AI fees for coding, but the increased coding productivity continues.
Re: It _is_ already paying off. Epic style. (Score:2)
Where are all the open source examples of 5x-10x productivity gains? Can you point out a single one?
Cause if all these massive gains are only coming from closed source projects, then they are pretty much 100% lies or figments in the imagination of the devs.
Re: (Score:2)
My productivity has increased tenfold since January...I'm a sole developer at a law firm.
That is believable. A sole developer at a law firm will have random tasks (like, "find out what is in this dbDOS PRO database we found during discovery"). As such, a lot of your time is spent figuring out how to do things that will only have to be done once. Traditionally, you would have spent time in search engines or StackOverflow trying to figure it out. Now AI is acting as a type of advanced search engine for you.
So your work is like the ideal use case for AI.
Re: (Score:2)
Using AI is basically a new cultural technique such as reading, writing and math and it makes specialized white-collar humans (like me) less needed in the mid- to long term. Anybody who expects that to show up on some monetary balance sheet in the stock market doesn't understand the nature of the tool. Point in case: a company like Google is worth X on the stock market. The value Google provides to humanity however is 100x or something like that. We run around with SF supercomputers in our pocket that make star trek communicators look like some plastic toy you get as a token prize at a fair-raffle.
If Google provides 100x value to users why wouldn't this translate to a measurable increase in labor productivity? It might not show on Google's ledger yet I would obviously expect it to have a tangible impact on productivity across the market in everyone else who benefits from it. What prevents such a signal from being detectable in the overall market?
Thus are the effects of an ever expanding post-scarcity economy
Post scarcity economy? What post scarcity economy?
Expecting something meaningful to show up on the stock market because of that is like expecting a decomissioned steam engine to fix itself when I get a new Tesla car.
This is gibberish lacking a nexus to the issue at hand.
Because it's getting absorbed by our culture. (Score:2)
If Google provides 100x value to users why wouldn't this translate to a measurable increase in labor productivity?
Because those productivity gains are getting absorbed by our culture. That is my entire point.
A bushmans productivity in scavenging does not show up in the stock market because he doesn't even know (or care) what a stock market is. Likewise that you and I can read and write and do math and know enough about germ and pathogen theory to wash our hands with soap and eat with cutlery does not show u
Re: (Score:2)
Because those productivity gains are getting absorbed by our culture. That is my entire point.
A bushmans productivity in scavenging does not show up in the stock market because he doesn't even know (or care) what a stock market is.
I don't know what "getting absorbed by our culture" even means. My remarks were about labor productivity not stock markets.
Likewise that you and I can read and write and do math and know enough about germ and pathogen theory to wash our hands with soap and eat with cutlery does not show up on the stock market either.
"Dead labor" affects labor productivity as does the health of participants in the labor market.
It's basically a given that we know these things in our civilisation.
Did you by chance connect the AI to Slashdot so that it can post for you?
I don't believe you about the 10x part (Score:2)
10x isn't fully realized. Because _I_ catch it. (Score:2)
That's why my code is better that ever but I get to close up shop at 5 in the afternoon. For me 10x _is_ realized. For my company it's closer to 5x. Which is no problem for me because it's actually my private AI metasubscription taking care of all this.
This is my initial point: I get to take it easy because at least half of AIs productivity gains benefit me directly. As of know I'm basically being paid to tell robots what to do. And that's pretty much the definition of a post-scarcity utopia if you ask me.
Re: (Score:2)
As of know I'm basically being paid to tell robots what to do. And that's pretty much the definition of a post-scarcity utopia if you ask me.
Well, it isn't for a whole lot of reasons. Zeroth, "utopia" means nowhere and it's a thought experiment. First and foremost though, the "I" in "I'm" — utopia is supposed to be a type of society and not just a state of being for a single person. It's working for you now so you are happy now. But you being able to replace all those people now somehow hasn't made you wonder if you are going to be replaced.
Another reason which is (now that I make the comparison) actually equally important is that AI is ba
Ok, dummies, listen up (Score:2)
Really smart, self aware people, can ask the sharpest questions, and get the most value. The AI will rise to your level of intelligence.
Dumb peopl
Re: Ok, dummies, listen up (Score:1)
"You don't know you're talking to yourself."
When you're banned or post-throttled across the entire internet and people irl pick up on that same vibe so you have no friends, is there a better way to scratch the verbal intercourse itch built into us, even as socially flawed as we may be?
Re: (Score:2)
Lets remove all the bullshit form your statement and state the core, shall we?
AI is a tool. It need to be used competently to produce good results. It is also not the thing that solves every problem.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not going to understand or like this, so just relax. It's a genie in a lamp, just ask the right question.... and get the right answer. You won't ask the right question, you can't ask the right question. Ironic. The AI is a reflection of you. Like Narcissus, you gaze at it lovingly, because it is you. All your flaws and all your strengths are reflected back.
Really smart, self aware people, can ask the sharpest questions, and get the most value. The AI will rise to your level of intelligence.
Dumb people aren't smart enough to realize how good or bad an answer is.
This is nothing more than falsification resistant gibberish. I'm beginning to see a pattern in people who use too much AI and the posting of unhinged nonsense.
AI does a LOT of grunt work (Score:3)
Let's say that you have 6 years worth of information about an organization. You want to create a year-over-year summary report that drills into what the organization did and more importantly, what all that cost. Could you hire a few of people to pour over that data and try to come up with something useful? Sure. They'd be expensive and they take a lot of time to do the job. Also, you never know if they're not cherry-picking the data or concealing some of it because they have a personal axe to grind. Humans have their own motivations or lack thereof. They might not actually do the work and instead come up with a report that's B.S while using the money you paid them to go to Tahiti. AI would do this task in a day or two and it won't conveniently forget to include data because of some ideological viewpoint.
At this point, you do have to iterate a few times and disambiguate the information so it can process it correctly. But it asks you for clarification instead of assuming. The models are going to become more efficient and require fewer iterations over the next couple of years.
Ultimately, you do have to have a pretty good understanding of the subject matter in order to collaborate well. If you don't know the first thing about electronics and you asked AI to design a circuit to do something, it probably won't work. But if you know how to tell AI what you're seeing on scopes and meters, it can help you make modifications to get it to work. That applies to pretty much any subject. The people using AI to make a lot of money in the market most likely already have a good understanding of how the market works.
Re: (Score:2)
Fact-free speculation always makes for the best opinions.
Some companies had to rehire humans... (Score:2)
Because so many companies are incompetant (Score:2)
I am deep in the AI space
And I can tell you, the number of companies that have deployed AI to production well, to any kind of degree, are very slim.
The problem isn't the technology. Its that most companies are staffed and run by incompetants, and are unable to change at the pace needed to get benefit from AI
The disruption caused by AI is going to be felt as existing Fortune 1000 companies all start being disrupted by other companies with half of the operating expenses.
A
failed to point to meaningful revenue gains (Score:2)
Most AI LLM deployments are simply customer facing chatbots. Their purpose is to give you common options and to help remove you from the queue of customers waiting to talk to an actual person to get your task done. They "save money" by preventing you from talking to a real person and try to get you to reevaluate just how badly you need to talk to a real person who can actually complete the task. The AI chatbot is basically trying to prevent you from talking to a real person, and what does that do for custom
The Inverse Cramer Effect means: BUY AI NOW (Score:2)
Cramer's picks are so bad that he is more often wrong than right. A study (https://www.cxoadvisory.com/gurus/) (https://www.danerwealth.com/blog/the-terrible-track-record-of-wall-street-forecasts) showed that he was accurate only 47% of the time, or worse than a coin flip.
If Cramer says to dump AI, that means you should buy AI.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody owes Cramer any proof or explanations. Leave him in the dark. He's irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Needs 'Cold Hard' Proof
That's what I said about AGW. And do you know what most people told me?
I know what I told you. I told you that, for a start, read the IPCC working group 1 report "The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change".
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6... [www.ipcc.ch]
The way you can tell when people who claim to be skeptics aren't, is that when you tell them where to find the answer to their questions they don't want to hear it.
Many being the same people here trying to sell AGI.
I have never tried to sell AGI. (And I most certainly don't think large language models are AGI, or are ever going to evolve into AGI or anything like it.)
Re: (Score:1)
The price thing is important. What I suspect is that when companies can no longer subsidize bot use via investor funds and per market-share fights, users will balk at prices and look for cheaper alternatives, which may result in better model compression and/or overseas commodification, meaning the US data-centers won't be competitive, and those investors will get screwed, possibly triggering a Wallstreet crash.