> How can anyone not see just how impactful it's going to be? Or already is? I can't think of a single recent technology that was so widely adopted by tech and non-tech people alike, immediately integrated into day-to-day experience. The rise of mobile phones and e-commerce in the 90s would be the last time I've seen this happen (I'm not counting smartphones, as those are more of an iteration). Or social media, in purely software space.
You can't know this for certain until you look back on it in retrospect. We did not know mobile phones and e-commerce were going to be huge back in the 90s. We know now, of course, looking back, and the ones who guessed right back then can pat themselves on the back now.
Everyone is guessing. I'll admit it's totally possible LLMs and AI are going to be as earth shattering as its boosters claim it will be, but nobody can know this now with as much certainty as is being written.
> We did not know mobile phones and e-commerce were going to be huge back in the 90s.
Eh? We did. The whole dot-com boom was predicated on that assumption. And it wasn't wrong. But most of the dot-com investments went sideways. In fact, they imploded hard enough to cause a recession.
In the same vein, even if we all agree that AI is fundamentally transformative, it doesn't mean that it's wise to invest money into it right now. It's possible that most or all of these early products and companies will go bust.
I think this is the right sentiment. I know a handful of AI startups that have raised 10's to 100's of millions. All of them were crushed with gpt-3 and subsequent models. None of them have any real revenue, have crazy burn rates with their compute spend, and generally haven't proven any value with their AI platforms. Most seem to be working on tech to find a problem rather than the inverse. Funds are throwing money on ideas.. that haven't panned out for years now. I worked with one and they were spending 10's of millions per researcher on AI compute... which makes sense if it's directed but most of the researchers were just running off on their own and the company hoped one would figure something out. Very disorganized for the stacks of cash being spent. Similar things have happened in the Cyber Security field just at a lesser scale.
But hey, Nvidia is investing in companies.. to spend money on Nvidia .. infinite money glitch!
> I'll admit it's totally possible LLMs and AI are going to be as earth shattering
You don't need earth shattering though. The PC revolution was huge because every company got a bit more productive with things like word processors and printing and email.
The internet (and then later mobile) was big because every company got a revenue boost, from a small one with online presence to a a huge one for e-commerce to transformative with Netflix and streaming services.
Ignoring the more sci-fi claims of AGI or anything, if you just believe that AI is going to make every office worker 10% more productive, surely each company is goign to have to invest in AI, no? Anytime you have an industry that can appeal to every other company, it's going to be big.
I wouldn't be surprised if in large companies (say >500 office workers) 10% of all office work becomes redundant. Not in the form of each worker getting 10% more productive, but in form of some roles getting eliminated completely and others losing 80% of their workload.
That's been true even for traditionally programmed replacements tho, there are plenty of office out there with a bunch of people banging on excel when everything they do could be automated.
> You can't know this for certain until you look back on it in retrospect.
Correct, but the thing is, AI blown up much faster than phones - pretty much a decade in a single year, in comparison. Mobile phones weren't that useful early on, outside of niche cases. Generative AI is already spreading to every facet of peoples' lives, and has even greater bottom-up adoption among regular people, than top-down adoption in business.
> Correct, but the thing is, AI blown up much faster than phones
What do you base that on though? Two years into the iPhone, Apple reported a $6.75b revenue on iPhone related sales. ChatGPT may reach or surpass that this year considering they're currently at $3.4b. That's not exactly what I would call growing faster than phones, however, and according to this article, very few people outside of nvidia and OpenAI are actually making big money on LLM's.
I do think it's silly to see this wave of AI to be referred to as the next blockchain, but I also think you may be hyping it a little beyond its current value. It being a fun and useful tool for a lot of things isn't necessarily the same thing at it being something that's actually worth the money investors are hoping it will be.
>> Correct, but the thing is, AI blown up much faster than phones
>What do you base that on though? Two years into the iPhone, Apple reported a $6.75b revenue on iPhone related sales. ChatGPT may reach or surpass that this year considering they're currently at $3.4b.
But the iPhone was launched more than 10 years past mobile phones (in fact, more than 20, but that's stretching it). There were more than 1B mobile phones shipped in 2006, the year before the iPhone launched.
My childhood? I was a teen when mobile phones started to become widely used, and soon after pretty much necessary, in my part of the world. But, to reiterate:
> Two years into the iPhone, Apple reported a $6.75b revenue on iPhone related sales.
That's just an iteration, and not what I'm talking about. Smartphones were just different mobile phones. I'm talking about the adoption of a mobile phone as a personal device by general population.
> It being a fun and useful tool for a lot of things isn't necessarily the same thing at it being something that's actually worth the money investors are hoping it will be.
That's probably something which needs to be disentangled in these conversations. I personally don't care what investors think and do. AI may be hype for the VCs. It's not hype for regular Janes and Joes, who either already integrated ChatGPT into their daily lives, or see their friends doing so.
Its a lot easier to use AI when its basically given away for free than when it cost $399 for a Palm Pilot in the 90s.
For a $399 device, Palm Pilot did well and had an excellent reputation for the time. Phones really took over the PDA market as a personal pocket-computer more-so than being used as ... a phone...
Really, I consider the modern smartphone a successor to the humble PDA. I grew up in that time too, and I remember the early Palm adopters having to explain why PDAs (and later Blackberries) were useful. That was already all figured out by the time iPhone took over.
> I personally don't care what investors think and do.
Isn't this a an odd take when you're discussing things on a VC website? In any case, if you like LLM's you probably should care considering it's the $10b Microsoft poured into OpenAI that's made the current landscape possible. Sure, most of those money were fuled directly into Azure because that's where OpenAI does all it's compute, but still.
> It's not hype for regular Janes and Joes, who either already integrated ChatGPT into their daily lives, or see their friends doing so.
Are they paying for it? If they aren't then will they pay for it? I think it's also interesting to view the numbers. ChatGPT had 1.6 billion visitors in January 2024, but it had 637 million in May 2024.
Again. I don't think it's all hype, I think it'll change the world, but maybe not as radically as some people expect. The way I currently view it is another tool in the automation tool-set. It's useful, but it's not decision making and because of the way it functions (which is essentially by being very good at being lucky) it can't be used for anything important. You really, really, wouldn't want your medical software to be written by a LLM's programmer. Which doesn't necessarily change the world too much because you really, really, didn't want it to be written by a search engine programmer either. On the flip-side, you can actually use ChatGPT to make a lot of things and be just fine. Because 90% (and this a number I've pulled out my ass, but from my anecdotal experience it's fairly accurate) of software doesn't actually require quality, fault tolerance or efficiency.
> And regular Janes and Joes are not using ChatGPT. Revenues would be 10-100x if that were the case.
3/4 of the people I know are actively using it are on free tier. And based on all the HN conversations in the last year, plenty of HNers commenting here are also using free tier. I'd never go back to GPT-3.5, but apparently most people find it useful enough to the point they're reluctant to pay that $20/month.
As for the rest, OpenAI is apparently the fastest-growing service of all time ever, so that says something.
A while back I used 3.5 to make a chat web page so I could get the better models as PAYG rather than subscription… and then OpenAI made it mostly pointless because they gave sufficient 4o access to the free tier to meet my needs.
Calling the iPhone an iteration is pure nonsense. Mobile phones had tiny utility compared to smartphones.
A phone on the go didn’t fundamentally alter anything except for making coordination while traveling easier. I went through both the cell phone adoption curve and the smartphone curve.
The latter was the massive impact that brought computing to the remaining 85% of the planet and upended targeting desktop operating systems for consumers by default.
Calling smartphones an iteration on cellphones is like calling ChatGPT an iteration on the neural networks we had 10 years ago.
> Mobile phones had tiny utility compared to smartphones
They had tiny utility compared to modern smartphones but the first iPhone was a glorified iPod with a touchscreen and a cellular radio. It didn’t have an app store and the only thing it really did better than other mobile phones was web browsing, thanks to the touchscreen keyboard.
It wasn’t as revolutionary as hindsight now makes it seem. It was just an iteration on PalmPilots and Blackberries.
Another thing that is forgotten about the first iPhone: I think Apple negotiated with AT&T (?) to change the voice mail system so you could select from your iPhone (voicemail app?) which message you wanted to listen. Prior, you always needed to call the mobile provider voice mail system, then listen the messages in order (or skip them). That was a huge early selling point for the iPhone. I know -- no one cares about voice mail in 2024, but it used to be very important.
The iPhone was not the first cell phone. Initial adoption of cell phones was much slower than ChatGPT. Think 1980’s/1990’s.
Even when cell phones started getting popular, often only one or two family members would get one. The transition time between “started becoming popular” and “everyone has one” was >5 years and even then it was relatively normal that people would just turn off their cell phone for a few days (to mixed reactions from friends and family).
Any talk of "regular people" inside the HN bubble is fraught with bias. Commenters here will sometimes tell you that "regular people" work at FAANG, make $400K/yr and have vacation homes in Tahoe. Actual "regular people" use Facebook occasionally, shop at the grocery store, watch Sportsball on TV, and plan their kids' birthday parties or their next vacation. They're not sitting there augmenting their daily lives with ChatGPT.
You're a long time HN contributor and I admit when I see your username, I stop and read the comment because it's always insightful, polite, and often makes me think about things in ways I never have before! But this discussion borders on religious fervor. "Every facet of peoples' lives?" Come on, man!
My dad used AI to generate artwork with pictures hung up across the house.
He's intersted in meditation and mindfulness. He's not a native English speaker, so he's using AI to help him write content. He's then using AI text to voice to turn his scripts into YouTube videos. The videos have AI generated artwork too.
My dad is a retired welder in his late 60s. He's as "regular people" as it gets.
I'm a high school teacher and GPT has completely changed teaching. We're using it to help with report writing, lesson planning, resource creation, even for ourselves to get up to speed on new topics quickly.
I'm working on a tool for teachers that's only possible with GPT.
It's by far the single, most transformative technology I've ever encountered.
And how much of an influence have you had on him to encourage or assist with this behaviour? What about the average person that doesn't know anybody (at least closely) working in tech.
> Actual "regular people" use Facebook occasionally, shop at the grocery store, watch Sportsball on TV, and plan their kids' birthday parties or their next vacation. They're not sitting there augmenting their daily lives with ChatGPT.
I'm aware of the HN bias, but in this case, I'm talking regular, non-tech, sportsball or TikTok watching crowd. Just within my closest circles, one person is using ChatGPT for recipes, and they're proficient at cooking so I was surprised when they told me the results are almost always good enough, even with dietary restrictions in place (such as modifying recipes without exceeding nutrient limits). Another person used it for comparison shopping of kids entertainment supplies. Another actually posted a car sale ad and used gen-AI to swap out background to something representative (no comment on ethics of that). Another is evaluating it for use in their medical practice.
(And I'm excluding a hundred random uses I have for it, like e.g. making colorbooks for my kids when they have very specific requests, like "dancing air conditioners" or whatever.)
Without data, we're trading anecdotes. Your circle is in the bubble, mine isn't. This user[1] shared a Pew survey, which looks like the best we're going to get. The survey asked what % of people ever used ChatGPT, which I'd interpret as "at least one time ever" and the number is less than 1 in 4. I'd love to see actual data on what percentage of people use it at least once daily, which is the bar I'd accept for "integrated with their daily lives."
Fair enough. My circle may be in a bubble, and come to think of it, selection bias is a factor - I can think of all the people close to me who use it, but there's more equivalently close friends and relatives who (as far as I know) don't. I do think the survey is giving quite a big results, given we're barely a year into the whole ChatGPT craze - but we can revisit this topic when more data becomes available. I'm sure it'll come up again :).
Or: work at an unnamed high frequency trading hedge fund, make $800K/yr. (The number of people on HN claiming to be this person surely exceeds the number in the Real World by ... multiples.)
Any evidence backing up these claims about adoption?
I thought the same about adoption (across multiple audiences, not just tech workers and/or young people), was faced with surprising poor knowledge about GenAI when making surveys about it in my company. Maybe investors are asking the same questions right now.
> Mobile phones weren't that useful early on, outside of niche cases.
Truck drivers, construction crew, couriers, lawyers, sales people of all kinds, stock brokers, ... Most of the economy that isn't at a desk 996. Pretty big niche, bigger than the non-niche possibly.
Huh? Mobile phone was available commercially in 1980s, and started to proliferate in 1990s. It was definitely not popular in those groups early on. Any of them.
That's his point, we _know_ this. People can already use OpenAI as a replacement for Google search and people are already doing this. You might not think this is a good thing yadda yadda go to the library, but we already know that chat bots are here to stay.
There is a huge spectrum between "here to stay" and "changing everything". On another note, I think if the people arguing here would work out quantitative predictions, they would find that a not insignificant part of the "disagreement" about how big we should expect this to really be is in the framing.
Except AI is already being used by people (like myself) every day as part of their usual work flow - and it's a huge boost in productivity.
It's not IF it will make an impact - it IS currently making an impact. We're only just moving past early adopters and we're still in the early stages in terms of tooling.
I'm not saying that AI will become sentient and take over humanity, but to think that AI isn't making an impact is to really have your head in the sand at this point.
I don't get why people insist this is agi any more than a ship is artificial general swimming.
It doesn't matter if it's general, what matters is that its useful. And if you don't find it useful just remember a lot of people in the 00s didn't find google useful either since they already had the yellow pages.
I strongly suggest paying for a subscription to either openai or anthropic and learning quickly.
You get what you pay for, despite what everyone is saying the 4o gpt model is really bad for long form reasoning.
Buy the subscription and use the turbo4 model.
After that api credits so you get access to the playground and change the system prompt. It makes a huge difference if you don't want to chat for 10 minutes before you get the result you want.
You can't know this for certain until you look back on it in retrospect. We did not know mobile phones and e-commerce were going to be huge back in the 90s. We know now, of course, looking back, and the ones who guessed right back then can pat themselves on the back now.
Everyone is guessing. I'll admit it's totally possible LLMs and AI are going to be as earth shattering as its boosters claim it will be, but nobody can know this now with as much certainty as is being written.