It's shocking/hilarious how much/many people believe that there are any economic prospects in generative AI. By definition, if something is generated by an AI then it's worthless if for no other reason than supply and demand.
There's also a reason it's called a singularity, it sucks everything in that touches it but otherwise has very little influence on anything else.
Have you tried talking to Siri? Compare that to ChatGPT and you'll see that it's much better. The predictive nature of LLMs are perfect for voice assistant use cases, which when connected to "plugins" means we'll all have our own personal assistants. That's worth something.
> The predictive nature of LLMs are perfect for voice assistant use cases
But people in general don't seem to be interested in voice assistants in general. They were a huge hype when you basically had to manually uncheck boxes to not accidentially order an Amazon Echo, etc, but as quick as the hype was there it was gone. To my knowledge Amazon has yet to make any kind of substantial revenue with Alexa stuff.
With LLMs I would expect this to be even more of an issue given how costly the inferencing alone is when we're talking about an LLM. And yes, the utility will likely increase substantially with the adoption of LLMs as opposed to previous language processing techniques, but I don't think this will outweigh the disinterest in the overall technology.
People aren't that interested in voice assistants atm, though i know plenty people who look up stuff, start music etc with it.
When voice synthesis, long context etc. i'm pretty sure a lot of people would love to have a private "Her" like friend/assistant that could both be therapy, a PA and a friend, and i don't think we're that far from that. Dystopian and lonely as it is.
Why would they want to run LLM queries every time someone asks Siri for the normal shit people ask their voice assistants: weather, timers, controlling music; on a scale of every iPhone user out there.
It'd just be waisting compute money with no obvious way of recouping the cost. Doubt many people would be interested in paying for Siri.
They already run compute for siri for voice to text. So they could in theory still provide an LLM backed siri service for free for their customers/users.
Sure the AI input/output itself doesn't have a ton of value. Tell that to Microsoft and Google, who seem to be obsessed with chat interfaces while lacking any creativity as to where else the technology can be deployed.
Apple's key strength is Integration. If their AI play is different and better, this is why it will be so. When Samsung puts AI in their phones, its a sparkles-and-magic button in an action bar that pops up a list of actions that might as well be chat prompts. Microsoft releases 365 Copilot and its a chat sidebar to the normal Office apps. There's real opportunity to integrate AI more deeply into the OS and the actions users take when using the OS.
I don't know what form that takes; that's Apple's job to figure out. I think WWDC this year is when we'll be presented their vision (ha) on how it fits together. I think: If it looks a lot like the Galaxy AI event, then your take is right and I immediately become bearish on AI and honestly bearish on Apple's future among the ultra-high-value companies of the US. But, I'm leaning toward feeling that they're going to surprise us, and I'd put money on the outcome that WWDC represents an "iPhone Moment" for AI, leaving a lot of organizations scrambling to understand how their product fits into Apple's world and not the other way around. But, we'll see.
What an inane strawman argument. Houses are obviously not worthless because there's finite land to build on and building houses takes a non trivial amount of labor and capital. The problem the user you responded to is pointing out is that a lot of people assume productivity was the problem with so-called creative fields and these tools are going to somehow fix that problem. What's actually going to happen is a ton of people are going to produce a ton of trite AI content that is essentially identical because everyone is using the same models, thus inflating the supply. In addition, nobody actually gives a shit about AI generated garbage, so demand isn't suddenly going to rise. In many ways, the attention economy is already saturated, and the way you succeed there is not through productivity but by differentiating yourself in ways that make your content more desirable.
Put simply, have you heard of or do you follow any AI based creators? I can name 10 or 20 artists, content creators, movie directors, or writers that I respect pretty much instantly. Can't really do the same thing for people using AI.
This is such a weird take, at $dayjob we're selling a product right now that's based on generative AI to end users who largely have no idea or care that it's an LLM behind the scenes. The previous version of this product used NLP via spacy and it was pretty bad because even with lots of tuning wrangling the kind of unstructured text we consume just didn't work in general.
Didn't think our boy karl marx would be relevant here lol but yeah that's a very commodity-fetishistic way to look at the value of AI/assumes that the value of the generative models is that they generate output that has some sort of market value as a commodity by itself. Makes way more sense to think of it as a service than a means of production. I'm not gonna pay for an ai generated image, but would I pay for access to better internet search, or document understanding, or for help understanding/writing code in new codebases? Yeah I would. Clearly there's enough people that haven't cancelled their chatgpt subscription that the value is greater than zero. Including negative externalities net value might even end up negative, which would make it hard to argue it has little influence elsewhere if it has a negative influence on e.g. artist pay or electoral democracy.
There's also a reason it's called a singularity, it sucks everything in that touches it but otherwise has very little influence on anything else.