I don’t understand why you got angry. Generative LLM models rely on the data used in their training, so they are at their best when solving general, precisely defined problems for which many examples exist, meaning they should indeed be used in a waterfall-like manner. AI is not particularly suited for agile development and creative problem-solving, and the worst is if the context becomes polluted with contradictory prompts, because a person thinks they have explained the matter, when in reality the model’s confusion likely only increases.
We have painstakingly taught people away from the waterfall model, and now we should find a path back to it, because the more text you manage to write before the very first prompt, the better the end result will be. Especially optimization is in its infancy, as the world is full of bad code and far too little material on what well-optimized code looks like and how to achieve it step by step. A solution for this is unlikely to be found with AI tools in the near future either, so projects requiring agility, creativity, and changing specifications will continue to be carried out by skilled coders like you
Well, the honeymoon with LLMs is coming to an end. OpenAI is rolling out ads to ChatGPT. From there, it will probably expand to all sorts of other data sales to third parties, because they also have to make a living somehow. Sam Altman is my number one “tech villain” in the category. A ruthless guy who will definitely find ways to monetize, no matter how immoral they are. It’s probably a good time to delete all ChatGPT history, if that’s even possible.
Proceeding according to the playbook. The time of free lunches doesn’t last long, and if the product is free, money is collected by monetizing the user base. As you noted, by selling data or with targeted ads.
What a treasure trove query history and intention inference are, for example, for pharmaceutical and supplement companies?
It seems that the one who “wins” this game, measured by market share, is the one willing to incur the biggest losses. Overt advertising drives users away to those who don’t advertise. Data collection is convenient for Alphabet, among others, which can advertise in its other services. But even they probably won’t make money with Gemini.
Alphabet’s profitability is boosted by the fact that Gemini increases the number of solutions built on the Google Cloud stack, thus bringing in high-margin revenue. OpenAI will not be able to compete alone unless it develops a competitor for AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud.
However, seeing my deepest desires in the form of an ad in my private ChatGPT window is certainly not as bad as what social media already is. Social media collects secrets through the camera, microphone, screen, page visits, text written on the phone, location, etc. Somehow this information is then processed to determine what has been found and what can be inferred from it, what has not been found and what can be inferred from the fact that it has not been found. All this information is shared with the user’s relatives and friends through ads and personalized content. For example, if you suffer from hemorrhoids, social media tells your friends about it. It’s another matter whether they grasp the hint in their own news feed, but the information is conveyed. Could this get even worse on an AI platform, since surveillance is already as bad as it can possibly be?
Had to try this. The handwriting changed and the solution doesn’t look right either. I haven’t solved math problems in 25 years, so someone else tell me.
It does pick up the notebook and the task I gave it very well, so in that sense, quite impressive. The task is up there then.
Prompt: make an image that wins the game. It’s O’s turn and the winning square is very obvious.
The result is like “yeah, right”. The starting situation has also been “slightly” edited.
Google was in a similar situation a few years ago, but with an endless war chest, AI culture, etc. OpenAI has nothing. Sam cleared the AI geniuses and culture out of his ego’s way to other companies. Investors are unlikely to want to fund a war against Google.
I’m enjoying this as both a Google shareholder and a Sam Altman hater. Ah, all those arrogant statements, appearing as a non-profit Jesus and an AI visionary.
When throwing around comments like these, could you at least provide some background on what it’s about and a summary of the article? There wasn’t even a link.
Below are a couple of excerpts from an FT article regarding Altman’s ‘code red’ announcement.
OpenAI needs every new source of revenue it can find. But the perils of that approach may be starting to show through. Three years after ChatGPT sent Google reeling, the search giant has surged back. Its latest Gemini AI model has been widely lauded, propelling the company’s stock to new heights. Alert to the threat, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has issued what he called a “code red” to staff, urging them to refocus efforts on ChatGPT.
Google’s ability to use its search engine as an on-ramp to Gemini gives it a powerful customer acquisition tool. Altman’s call for more effort to expand ChatGPT’s capabilities, for instance adding more personalisation and being able to answer a wider range of questions, points to a period of intense competition ahead over new features.
So, Google’s position and strengths are starting to show, with which they have managed to catch up with ChatGPT in Gemini’s user numbers and technology. Conversely, OpenAI has started to branch out into various services in pursuit of additional business, which means that investments and development in its main product, the chatbot, are falling behind the competitor.
Having used Gemini 3 for a while, I’m annoyed by its technical problems:
“Error: Try again”
Sometimes it gets stuck in an endless loop: “I see file xyz, I should update it… actually, I see file abc. I see file xyz, I should update it… actually, I see file abc…”
And Claude fixes linter errors without being asked, whereas Gemini needs to be explicitly commanded, saying, “Hey, there’s a linter error there, fix it.”
Sometimes one hears arguments that artificial intelligence practically revolutionizes nothing. However, over the past year, AI-generated content has filled every corner:
The feeds of Facebook, Instagram, etc., are practically almost entirely AI-generated content. AI-produced advertisements, AI-created social media influencers (for example, very clear AI-generated scantily clad female figures), AI-produced images and videos. I suspect that a significant portion of the audience doesn’t even recognize these as AI creations.
A large portion of the videos appearing in YouTube’s feed are already AI-generated. Recently, for example, AI-made investment-themed videos have been trending, where a famous investment guru like Charlie Munger or Warren Buffett explains their methods in “their own” voice. YouTube is also overflowing with AI-created animated investment videos.
A large portion of company advertisements are already AI-generated. This applies to everyone, from sports clubs to institutions.
The majority of memes are made with AI.
50% of Google search results led to AI-generated websites in 2024.
75% of LinkedIn’s viral posts in the United States were AI-generated.
The famous author Yuval Noah Harari has stated that he will hardly write a new book anymore, as he cannot possibly compete with AI. This could, of course, be a somewhat jocular remark, but each new version of ChatGPT has brought AI ever closer to the point where AI creations can no longer be distinguished from human creations. There are already good videos on YouTube showing how even AI experts can no longer distinguish AI-generated videos from genuine ones with full certainty.
Something will definitely be done about that, because the entire Internet is drowning in low-quality AI content and it’s getting hard to find quality content anymore. This is already visible on Facebook, LinkedIn, Reddit, and Spotify, and for example, it’s becoming impossible to find new good videos on YouTube, because behind an interesting image and title, you usually find a soulless AI voice nowadays. I myself fled from YouTube to Nebula and I don’t believe I’ll return until I get a button that removes all AI-generated content from view. Why on earth would I pay anything for a service where I can’t find any interesting content and which consists entirely of AI-generated content and messages written by bots, instead of other people?
Of course, AI can be utilized creatively and in a way that adds value to the viewer, but for every well-made AI video, an Indian content farm has created 10,000 competing zero-effort crap videos with AI. This current way of operating is not sustainable in any way.
Quite rightly reasoned by him, because Harari’s books are so bad that they couldn’t be distinguished from AI creations even before. About half of the content is usually just unscientific hallucination
It will be interesting to see, by the way, what happens when an increasingly larger portion of LLM training material is produced by LLMs. In my opinion, this topic is discussed surprisingly little.
What will AI bring that the internet took from traditional media? In the future, will the rich only read and watch paid content, and the poor consume free AI slop?
Paid content will not be funded by the rich. The monetization logic in content requires it to achieve the widest possible distribution. It can certainly be sold with different pricing tiers. Look at movies, for example: First, a cinema seat to watch the film is sold at a high price. Then home pay-per-view rental viewing is sold, then a Blu-ray disc, and finally it’s pushed into paid streaming services. Once the money is collected, the material is eventually marketed to free TV channels. All steps are gone through because all the money must be squeezed out, with advertising revenue at the tail end. If TV channels die, ad-funded streaming will take their place.
AI junk, as long as it’s clearly junk, can only compete at the very low end, and even there only because manufacturing costs are close enough to zero.
It remains to be seen how technology develops. I don’t consider it impossible that content production will face considerable upheavals within a few years.
That won’t happen, at least not with current technology. Since they are based on data used in training and what has been written on the internet and in books, they cannot create new things, understand the world more deeply, or master critical thinking. There is a surprising amount of niche knowledge in the world that requires genuine expertise and dedication, and misunderstandings written by laypeople on the internet won’t get you far. For generic, well-known, and sourced questions, AI is unparalleled, but if you go into even slightly more specialized tasks, it’s far from competing with humans in content creation.
