this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2026
928 points (99.0% liked)
Fuck AI
5268 readers
2146 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How could they have possibly thought AI would make them money? Lmfao. It sucks power and water just to give wrong answers or generate "art" with terrible attention to detail...
Some applications of AI are pretty neat. For example the DeepL translation tool. I convinced my employer to spend money on that. And they make 55 million in profits.
But forcing AI down our throats, like Google does with those horrible auto-dubbed videos? There's no way that will ever be profitable
DeepL isn't what is being touted as "AI" this week, though. DeepL is based on older translation technology (by which I mean "far more reliable").
This is a shell game. Every time there's a wave of "AI" it's some new tech that shills sell as the answer to "real" computer intelligence. (It can never possibly be this, of course, because we can't even define intelligence properly, not to mention making an artificial version of it.) There's certain levels of hype. There's a bubble (usually far smaller than this one, of course). Then the bubble pops and we enter the next AI Winter.
The small use cases for which the new technology is actually useful, however, loses the AI monicker and is just called "software". Like what used to be AI for doing dynamic adjustment on pictures for night shots, HDR, etc. is no longer shilled as AI. It's just ... software that my phone has built in.
So currently "AI" means "LLM" outside of some very specific academic environments. DeepL is just software that (mostly kinda/sorta) works.
DeepL is based on an LLM:
https://www.deepl.com/de/blog/next-gen-language-model
Yeah there are definitely some cool uses, it seems like analysis/processing uses are pretty good, but generative ones are not.
The AI models that are used for molecular research are literally remaking our understanding of biology and medicine. I don't know why the big AI corporations don't point to that as an example of the benefits of AI. I guess cause that doesn't help them to exclude the proletariat from their profits.
probably it has problems of its own, and it will likely require a scientist to fact checks any thing the AI makes, it also depends if a journal is finicky enough to accept a paper that the experiments are done by AI. pretty niche, i doubt its using the commercial ones like OPENAI/ GOOGLES,,or other. its probably made for that specific purpose of that research field. a small subset of users, so unlikely to generate profit that way because thats asmall group of "customers using a niche AI, and likely its proprietary to the UNiversity that made it anyways.
It's because they have no idea what "AI" actually is. They think you tell it to make profits, and it just does so. Anyone who has used any kind of "AI" for an hour knows that it's mostly just shit at everything except the absolutely most basic shit.
It's seeing a vision of the future and the technology that will transform it but not having the patience to let it happen and wanting to jump right to printing money. I think the fact that it happened to the internet should show that even incredibly useful tech can go through this process. It happened with video games, too. They see the potential but their eyes are only on the money, so they don't have the ability to meet that potential.
And in the case of the metaverse, they killed it off entirely by wanting to build a virtual storefront and advertising space before building a virtual space people would want to visit. Facebook thought the idea would sell itself just based on pop culture, despite none of the pop culture versions involving just a headset and trackers to enter a world you can only see and hear, but not touch (even though it might inconsistently react to your touch). The tech wasn't there but FB had FOMO and wasted billions chasing it anyways.
Exact same thing is happening with AI. LLMs improved by leaps and bounds, and once it was conversational, people with money went all in on the idea of what it could become (and probably still will, just not anytime soon and it won't be chatbots, actually I suspect we might end up using LLMs to communicate/translate with the real AIs, though they'll likely be integrated into them because that communication is so useful).
They don't understand that it takes more than just having a good idea or seeing tech before it explodes, you have to have passion for that tech, a passion that will fight against the urge to release it to make money, not a passion to release it regardless to make money sooner and the intent to fix it up later.
It's why they are trying to shove it into everything despite no one wanting it, because they think the exposure will drive demand, when it's actually exposure to something desirable that drives real demand. And exposure is instead frustrating or dangerous because it's often wrong and full of corporate censorship (that hasn't once been accurate but has always been easy to bypass any time I've run into it).
I just wonder if MS bet the farm on it, or only bet a survivable loss. Like is the CEO just worried about his job or the entire company's future?