I had to look up what “Enron” was, and man, it’s actually crazy what they did.
Also, Nvidia is the only one really profiting in all this. They’re selling shovels in a gold rush, essentially.
4 Likes
So we’re basically living in a world where a graphics card company is (indirectly mostly) destroying the planet by consuming resources, cancelling jobs from existence and incentivize effortless work? Wow.
(On a secondary note, wow, so many responses, until now it’s been a really interesting discussion, but it’ll definitely be a lot to work on to the things I’ve yet to respond to and in which I have to consider everything that has been said lol)
1 Like
I think it may be like Motion Capture was back in the day. Everyone was like “This can replace all animation ever“ and now nobody uses it except for video games where it sometimes looks good
Well, that’s not entirely true.
Motion capture, and even more face capture, are still really used in Visual Effects and characters for movies.
Maybe not much in animation, but for live action and similar things it does get used a lot.
1 Like
It is used heavily in film and in video games, it has become so normal that nobody talks about it as revolutionary
1 Like
We thought the same thing at the same time lol
1 Like
The topic is soo long that I can’t finish properly (at least I didn’t clicked that try copilot thing on the corner to summarize it ) ,The AI thing is pretty cool! I have been using this for a long time .
I hate when ads say PoWeRd bY AI , who needs AI except vibe coders? Now do I code all by myself? absolutely NOT, If I know I can dig around the docs a bit and smashing my mouse 3 times I can get the thing working then why not using those free thing that makes the work easier?
The AI thing needs normal people like us to collect data and learn new things soo I guess they are not making it 100% paid at all ( Man,I didn’t knew a GPU can be over 96 gigs!?)
Nowdays most of us hate the thing AI because of the
1.Non-sense claims,
2.Using it in the wrong place ( why u need an AI in file explorer?)
3.Vibe coders …. LOL
4.Misinformation
why we Yapping about AI in our cool Godot forum ? AI doesn’t know about many things in Godot LoL we don’t need it much xD
The only thing I would love is an AI that would help me hit 80wpm xD I am at only 50 now…What if I ask copilot ? lemme try
Have a happy day!
@pauldrewett sorry for your loss…I hope your cat is resting peacefully
2 Likes
I do agree with you that AI does have its uses and as we kinda agreed in the forum it is here to stay, just not in every place on earth.
AI looks and feels magical as it automates things that are usually done by us humans, and probably most people don’t like it because of the reasons you listed, but I’m sure that many people will soon open their eyes on the environmental and economical problems correlated to AI.
why we Yapping about AI in our cool Godot forum ? AI doesn’t know about many things in Godot LoL we don’t need it much xD
well, most people here are people who like tech and programming and since AI is a relevant topic to the tech and programming world in general I wanted to see what everyone thought about the actual situation.
2 Likes
On a side note
@pauldrewett sorry for your loss, I didn’t say it yesterday as I was preparing a response to what you said, but the topic became massive and being busy I’m still reading a lot here.
edit: wasn’t meant to be a response to the other guy’s post my bad! sorry for the extra notification!
2 Likes
Which is what the U.S. has been doing with manufacturing for 100 years, so I don’t see this fact (sadly) as something that’s going to stop this from happening.
Heh. Good word.
How? TBH that sounds like wishful thinking to me. They said the same thing about social media; and then we algorithm-ed people into echo chamber silos and drove people farther apart than ever in history - globally.
To be clear (and I think I mentioned this previously) I use LLMs weekly. And have been since before ChatGPT launched. There are things I like about LLMs. They are amazing technology. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think that they are good for everything; and that doesn’t mean I don’t think there’s a financial bubble.
Dunno who coffeezilla is, but I found the video interesting. I did not realize that Cisco was worth 1/2 billion at the time of the crash (and was the most highly valued company on the stock market ever at that time) and lost 88% of their value. So NVidia failing would be very similar.
I literally made the 
face when I read this. Crazy is not the word I would use. Criminal is. But yeah. Enron was a Ponzi scheme. And this is not that. You can read about the biggest Ponzi Scheme in EVE Online. (They stole $50k real world money in-game.)
Yup. But when the rush is over, they’ll be left holding all the shovels they didn’t sell. And their valuation is based on their projected ability to keep selling. As soon as they can’t sell, the company goes in the toilet - and the US economy with it.
No that’s like blaming pick axe companies for the gold rush. “If only they hadn’t sold those miners pick axes, there would be no gold rush!” The gold is still there. If NVidia didn’t fulfill their orders, then TSMC (in Taiwan), or Huawei, Alibaba, etc. (in China) would be fulfilling those orders.
4 Likes
Well, about the social barriers thing the only thing I think could make sense would be an advanced context-based translator, as often the translation of something changes by context.
Yup. But when the rush is over, they’ll be left holding all the shovels they didn’t sell. And their valuation is based on their projected ability to keep selling. As soon as they can’t sell, the company goes in the toilet - and the US economy with it.
Well, yes but no, it’s still Nvidia we’re talking about, and to keep the analogy going, if they don’t sell the shovels to the gold miners, they’ll sell them to the farmers. Maybe they won’t sell their server specialized GPUs as much but it’s still the basically biggest GPU company in the world.
I don’t know much about stock economy (yet, at least) but I think that the US economy, which afaik is based a lot on tech companies, and its survival are based on how the investors will act when the hype for AI fully deflates and the tech adjustes itself having found its place.
No that’s like blaming pick axe companies for the gold rush. “If only they hadn’t sold those miners pick axes, there would be no gold rush!” The gold is still there. If NVidia didn’t fulfill their orders, then TSMC (in Taiwan), or Huawei, Alibaba, etc. (in China) would be fulfilling those orders.
That’s the reason for the keyword indirectly, as their recent huge profit is a consequence of the AI market.
1 Like
NGL, that would be cool. When I go to other countries and am speaking other language, I like learning idioms. Those are things you normally cannot get out of language learning programs.
Yeah, that’s not going to happen. NVidia GPUs start at $4,500 and go up to $40,000. No one is buying that for their gaming PC. Not in this economy, and not in numbers that would make a dent in backstock.
Keeping the analogy going, it’s like trying to sell Big Red, a $250,000 sluicebox to a guy who wants to pan for gold for fun on the weekends.
It is the biggest GPU company, but their gaming cards made up 8.7% of their revenue, and their data centers 88.27%. They have a current market capitalization (Market Cap) of 4.43 trillion dollars. If you take the data centers away, it drops to 343 billion -which means they will survive, but all their investors will be in trouble. Like Cisco, they won’t go out of business. But it took Cisco 20 years to recover financially.
Yes, but I have no faith in investors. They operate on mob mentality. There’s a reason the stock market is compared to gambling.
Maybe.
2 Likes
Well, maybe the presence of AI helps to level the playing field, allow expert fields to be more accessible to people with less training, give people more time to focus on learning.
People can then see eye to eye a bit more and theres less stress about IQ or knowledge becauae the ability is available anyway.
Theres enough academic material in the form of papers, research, books etc to last several lifetimes. Its a shame when people keep doing things that can be done so much better (this is on reason why to use an engine like Godot by the way). Theres a large amount of it, but without a grip or overview of the knowledge base its not so useful, and going over all the papers takes time. People should empower themselves to use the previously innaccssible knowledge.
Yes, an ability to translate or summarize contextual information … this is already available with LLM’s. A good exanple of where it could be great is perhaps translating biomedical research into common sense. There is still some work that needs to be done, some advancement in the tech and maybe the algorithms.
If I started explaining differential equations to you right now, you would be lost unless you already understood algebra, geometry, trigonometry and calculus. That’s because there’s a shared language we use in math to explain and communicate about more complex concepts.
Could someone get an LLM to explain it to them? Sure! Although, when answering questions an LLM isn’t going to give you the right answer. It’s going to give you the statistically probable answer. Which means it is not going to do the math. It is going to query its knowledgebase and infer the answer based on all the information it has gathered, including all the wrong answers caught in its net. It cannot tell the difference between the two.
Of course to fully explain how LLMs work, the listener needs to understand statistical math, which again requires linear algebra and calculus. (We can skip some of the geometry and trig this time.)
There is really no such thing as leveling the playing field when it comes to knowledge. Just like wisdom, it takes time and mistakes to earn.
This is a nice thought, but as we discussed in this thread here: Study Finds Learning via ChatGPT Leads to Shallower Knowledge, having an AI regurgitate things to you does not help you learn the knowledge as well as actually learning the knowledge. I would be more worried about it increasing the occurrence of the Dunnig-Kruger effect when it comes to specialized knowledge.
Are you suggesting it’s time to stop making academic material, and researching new things?
There are many reasons to to use tools. Some people use Godot because they do not know how to program a game engine. Some people use it because they don’t want to program a game engine. Some people use it because they want to make a game to sell. Some people do it for fun. Some people do it to learn.
But I don’t know if I agree with the “so much better” argument. Personally, I use Godot because it’s good enough and easy to use. I enjoy it more than Unity and Unreal. But some would argue that Unreal or Unity would be the way to go if you wanted something “so much better”.
Yeah…but people who write papers are writing them for people who understand the math/science/etc.
Previously inaccessible to them? Perhaps. But like not everyone is suddenly going to become a neurosurgeon. Because not everyone wants to.
Are you suggesting all information should be free and available to all? It’s a nice idea.
It is. But that, in itself has issues. It isn’t reading it and understanding it. It’s running it through a statistical algorithm. For creating cliff notes for a book report, it’s probably ok. For giving a basic overview of a complex subject, it could be helpful. But relying on an LLM to not miss salient points is assuming that it understands the salient points and can explain them. It excels at explaining things we already know. The less knowledge available on a subject - the more likely it is to make things up that are not true. Case in point - asking for help programming Godot. (It’s only been a week since the last post I saw on here with someone asking for help with the crap code an LLM made for them that didn’t work as advertised.)
As someone who worked in biomedical research, I gotta say that a brief overview is helpful for business meetings, but not for actually contributing to further research. I worked on the tech side and I can tell you that I just found it boring after digging deep enough. That’s why we had Subject Matter Experts (SMEs).
TBH, I’m not really seeing how one draws the line between biomedical research and common sense. Common sense to me is like eat healthy and exercise.
The problem with the tech, as mentioned in the video that @mrcook posted is that Moore’s Law no longer holds up. That means that future processors are going to drain more power, and the technology will slow - at least until quantum processors become much more common (and stable) The problem with the algorithms is they write themselves. No one is sitting there coding them. Because the loss in accuracy is worthwhile compared to the speed and depth we get from LLMs.
I appreciate that you are optimistic about LLMs. I think that’s a good attitude to have. I also believe it’s important to understand the realities and drawbacks of technology even as we push it.
3 Likes
Somehow I had not considered that, right.
Effectively when some sell, everyone sells, and when some buy, everyone buys.
2 Likes
I was thinking about quantum processors, do you think they will be the probable way tech will advance in the future?
If they’re really as efficient as they pictur them to be then I hope in the next decade they’ll become of common use, and with qubits that don’t lose their quantum state quickly.
1 Like
Yes, but who knows when? As you pointed out there are a number of issues to overcome. Right now they are impractical in the same way AI is impractical - they consume MASSIVE amounts of power. In this case it’s because quantum processors need to be as close to 0 Kelvin as possible. If they are not - they lose their qubits. Some newer ones can apparently withstand a temperature of 1 Kelvin.
To put that in perspective, 0 degrees Centigrade is the temperature at which water freezes. 0 degrees Kelvin is the absolute coldest anything can get - which is -273.15 degrees Centigrade (-459.67 deg Fahrenheit). Quantum processors have to be kept at -273.14 degrees Centigrade or lower.
This is why when we hear about the cool thing that they did in China, transporting data to a satellite - there’s a reason they’re sending it to a satellite - it’s a lot cheaper up there. Space has an average temperature of 2.7 Kelvins. Of course in orbit, when the sun is shining down, a satellite would need to be shielded. But on the night side it’s a lot easier to get to 10 milli Kelvins or so needed for a quantum processor to work.
Quantum communication is also un-hackable. The gold standard in encryption. This is because the only two places that have the key are the start and finish of communication. There is no middle. Any any attempt to listen in actually changes the signature of the qubits - so that if someone is listening in they get nothing and you know someone is listening because your key doesn’t work. Banks are already looking into this technology for transactions.
3 Likes
May a sattelite hit me in the head if this isn’t the coolest thing I have heard of in a while
The only limit here really is physics, and the laws of physics can’t be overcome, but we will have to find a way to exploit them more if we want to upgrade our tech, as hard as that might be.
Though I wouldn’t be surprised if it takes us a really long time to find a way to use quantum processors in a common environment without having to use crazy amounts of energy per second.
Heck, we might even not find a way at all, but there’s probably many things we’re yet to discover so who knows.
1 Like
No dont, i have a math, physics and engineering background.
Thats why the tech (meaning algorithms and i suppose hardware) needs some work. There are researchers using transformera on math.
[quote=“dragonforge-dev, post:54, topic:129314”]
But I don’t know if I agree with the “so much better” argument.
[/quote]
Look, its called “re-inventing the wheel, badly, at least compared to premium research Teams that supply at a lower budget”.
Can you remember IBM’s Watson? That system had “natural language understanding/ comprehension” as one of its subsystems. Remember it beat the best human players at Jeapardy? What was the big deal? Please explain why LLM’s are so much more impactful.
If they do it better, they do it better. Watson had an enormous amount of research and office block floors devoted to the research but they did not achieve what ChatGPT achieved. There were large libraries of prolog devoted to decoding human english grammar
In these changing times more SME’s are needed but their fields are fragile and they stand more chance of being suddenly redundant so students are better off as generalists.
More to the point, cant you see the benefit of translating the difficult language of advanced chemistry ? Thats what transformers ahould be good at doing. ‘Summarize it for dummies/undergrads’ is a possibility, but maybe the algorithms need a leap or jump ahead to complete.
I cant be bothered to dig up a research paper written by a medical doctor.
Thanks. And about the realities of llms - they are not the end of the story.
Ive understood that Moore’s law doesnt hold up anymore for granted for over a decade. Processors stopped doubling in speed, throughput became more important.
Yep, at least that which is freely given.
And how many reasons to not keep making the tool again? Thats what education does.
Nope, just thought you should realize its undigestable.
Says one paper, but i think similar is true about google searches, using books or any search that relies on the knowledge being written down - see what happens when you take the open book exam set and compare them to the closed book set. Thats probably why a graduate from a top uni could get a job in the uk with a degree in a polar opposite subject.
If there is no advantage to being the “know it all” then the playing field is more level.
Oh yeah, one more question … If llms suck so bad then why are nobel prize winners teaming up to warn and complain about the dangers of AI.