Again, this is not an argument. I am asking: Why do we assume that we know better and people with far more knowledge and insight would all be wrong?
This is not rhetorical question, I am not looking for a rhetorical answer. What is every important decision maker at all these companies missing?
The point is not that they could not all be wrong, they absolutely could. The point is: Make a good argument. Being a general doomsayer when things get very risky might absolutely make you right but it's not a interesting argument – or any argument at all.
I think you have a point and I'm not sure I entirely disagree with you, so take this as lighthearted banter, but:
Coming from the opposite angle, what makes you think these folks have a habit of being right?
VCs are notoriously making lots of parallel bets hoping one pays off.
Companies fail all the time, either completely (eg Yahoo! getting bought for peanuts down from their peak valuation), or at initiatives small and large (Google+, arguably Meta and the metaverse). Industry trends sometimes flop in the short term (3D TVs or just about all crypto).
C-levels, boards, and VCs being wrong is hardly unusual.
I'd say failure is more of a norm than success, so what should convince us it's different this time with the AI frenzy? They wouldn't be investing this much if they were wrong?
The universe is not configured in such a way that trillion dollar companies come into existence without a lot of things going well over long periods of time, so if we accept money as the standard for being right, they are necessarily right, a lot.
Everything ends and companies are no exception. But thinking about the biggest threats is what people in managerial positions in companies do all day, every day. Let's also give some credit to meritocracy and assume that they got into those positions because they are not super bad at their jobs, on average.
So unless you are very specific about the shape of the threat and provide ideas and numbers beyond what is obvious (because those will have been considered), I think it's unlikely and therefor unreasonable to assume that a bystanders evaluation of the situation trumps the judgement of the people making these decisions for a living with all the additional resources and information at any given point.
Here's another way to look at this: Imagine a curious bystander were to judge decisions that you make at your job, while having only partial access to the information that you have to do the job, that you do every day for years. Will this person at some point be right, if we repeat this process often enough? Absolutely. But is it likely, on any single instance? I think not.
> Why do we assume that we know better and people with far more knowledge and insight would all be wrong?
Because of historical precedent. Bitcoin was the future until it wasn't. NFTs and blockchain were the future until they weren't. The Metaverse was the future until it wasn't. Theranos was the future until it wasn't. I don't think LLMs are quite on the same level as those scams, but they smell pretty similar: they're being pushed primarily by sales- and con-men eager to get in on the scam before it collapses. The amount being spent on LLMs right now is way out of line with the usefulness we are getting out of them. Once the bubble pops and the tools have a profitability requirement introduced, I think they'll just be quietly integrated into a few places that make sense and otherwise abandoned. This isn't the world-changing tech it's being made out to be.
You don't have an argument either btw, we're just discussing our points of view.
> Why do we assume that we know better and people with far more knowledge and insight would all be wrong?
Because money and power corrupt the mind, coupled with obvious conflicts of interest. Remember the hype around AR and VR in 2015s ? Nobody gives a shit about it anymore. They wrote articles like "Augmented And Virtual Reality To Hit $150 Billion, Disrupting Mobile By 2020" [0], well, if you look at the numbers today you'll see it's closer to 15b than 150b. Sometimes I feel like I live in a parallel universe... these people have been lying and overpromising things for 10, 15 or 20+ years and people still swallow it because it sounds cool and futuristic.
I'm not saying I know better, I'm just saying you won't find a single independent researcher that will tell you there is a path from LLMs to AGI, and certainly not any independent researcher that will tell you the current numbers a) make sense, b) are sustainable
This is not rhetorical question, I am not looking for a rhetorical answer. What is every important decision maker at all these companies missing?
The point is not that they could not all be wrong, they absolutely could. The point is: Make a good argument. Being a general doomsayer when things get very risky might absolutely make you right but it's not a interesting argument – or any argument at all.