Discussion about this post

User's avatar
VH's avatar

Why, why do articles like this always go into specific fantasies of the "great opportunities that lie ahead" - and then come up with such miserable ideas? In this article we have it again: Hyper personalization at scale, Ambient computing, Real-time immersive entertainment (also personalized), Democratized Science... None of these ideas are new, every single one has been around as a fantasy since at least the 90s and every step towards actually realizing any of them has turned out to be at best a very mixed blessing if not outright conceptual (more than technological) failure. Can I say Metaverse? IOT? What blessings have personalization brought us except for a surveillance economy and surveillance state - unless you are of the kind who LIKE "personalized advertising", of course?

The only exception, perhaps, being, Democratized Science. But I am not aware of a lot of science currently being held back by a lack of access to graphics cards - certainly not the kind of science that would benefit from "democratization".

All in all, this article smacks of AI slop - a re-hashing of existing ideas, made to sound authoritative. I guess the last paragraph, the author acknowledges this. Not sure, however, how much human and how much machine there was in this "collaboration".

I'll chalk it up to "Democratization of Authorship". Though not mentioned in this article, in actual reality THAT is much closer to the benefits of the commodification of this Loads of Language-generating technology that the article envisions will soon be sitting around collecting dust.

No posts

Ready for more?