I do find it interesting that the article lead goes with "computer scientist Louis Rosenberg" while if you click into the author profile it says:
> Dr. Louis B. Rosenberg is a computer scientist and current CEO of Unanimous AI, a California company focused on amplifying human intelligence using AI algorithms modeled on biological swarms.
Perhaps https://unanimous.ai/ (where Rosenberg is CEO) has funding problems if such articles are required.
Blaming the user for not understanding the magnificent technology is the latest fad. The cranky Google AI also accuses you of being "frustrated" and "anxious" if you do not like its output.
I feel like none of these discussions can ever go anywhere, if they don't start from a place of recognizing that "AI is a massive bubble" and "AI is a very interesting and useful technology that will continue to increase its impact" are not mutually exclusive statements
Of course it's not going away. But like every other bubble, it means that the technology can go back to what it's actually good at vs. just shoved in every single thing imaginable.
This is a really poorly written article. The author doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of “AI slop” (he equates it with LLM-generated code), and hasn’t seemed to have thought through the economics of his AI-everywhere assertion.
Anyway, denial or not, his vision of the likely future is one in which individual humans become irrelevant slaves to either AI or massive corporations. Why would any self-respecting human accept that outcome?
I do find it interesting that the article lead goes with "computer scientist Louis Rosenberg" while if you click into the author profile it says:
> Dr. Louis B. Rosenberg is a computer scientist and current CEO of Unanimous AI, a California company focused on amplifying human intelligence using AI algorithms modeled on biological swarms.
Perhaps https://unanimous.ai/ (where Rosenberg is CEO) has funding problems if such articles are required.
Blaming the user for not understanding the magnificent technology is the latest fad. The cranky Google AI also accuses you of being "frustrated" and "anxious" if you do not like its output.
Investors are beginning to notice.
Its behavior is becoming more human? No wonder investors are nervous.
Stop trying to make ~~fetch~~ "AI Denialism" happen. It's not going to happen!
I feel like none of these discussions can ever go anywhere, if they don't start from a place of recognizing that "AI is a massive bubble" and "AI is a very interesting and useful technology that will continue to increase its impact" are not mutually exclusive statements
We aren't "denialists" Louis we're just your adversaries.
Another salesperson trying to jump on a departing bandwagon, without having an interesting product and not providing any valuable insights.
> grief
> denial
Yeah, and he's in the denial phase
People act like AI is going to go away when an "AI bubble" pops.
What happened to the web when the dotcom bubble popped?
Of course it's not going away. But like every other bubble, it means that the technology can go back to what it's actually good at vs. just shoved in every single thing imaginable.
Anyone who actually uses AI, like myself, knows it is not God, nor a bubble.
It won't replace all people, just the people that don't/didn't embrace it. I'm tremendously faster than my peers who don't.
AI is for the smartest of us, myself included, who are not afraid of it, and not delusional about what it is.
It is the greatest tool/mirror we have ever made. If you actually use AI enough - you'll start to understand what recursive means.
This is a really poorly written article. The author doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of “AI slop” (he equates it with LLM-generated code), and hasn’t seemed to have thought through the economics of his AI-everywhere assertion.
Anyway, denial or not, his vision of the likely future is one in which individual humans become irrelevant slaves to either AI or massive corporations. Why would any self-respecting human accept that outcome?