I tend to agree with the author, but I think the real problem with hype is the opportunity cost. Somewhere along the way we bought into this idea that "the promise of X" is worth more than "the reality of X".
The longer the hype goes on - which is to say the longer it takes to demonstrate the hype is actually reality - the more people become more heavily invested in it.
If the hype never materialises, you basically build a larger and larger black swan when the crash arrives. The people who win are the few who got out early enough, and everyone else who ignored the hype.
If the hype does eventuate, the number of people you're now competing with in a new market is proportional to the length of time it took to eventuate, because for all those people that were onboard, some of them would enter the space in competition, not just as consumers. Again, the only outsized winners are those who got out early enough. The rest are now just working BAU. Like everyone else who ignored the hype.
In both cases, you're just as good or better off ignoring the hype because the chances of you winning big are tiny (unless you're a billionaire, but in that case you were already winning anyway).
If the hype materializes, it can still change course.
Learned some classical ASP to join the web dev hype? Well, tough luck. The hype was good but materialized in another vessel. If you learned enough fundamentals, you could still jump ship.
But what are the fundamentals for LLM? Hype rarely reveals them right away.
For LLMs, tough luck. You can't learn fundamentals with your toy PC yet. You need to be rich and have server grade hardware. Also, you cannot buy server grade hardware because it is out of stock.
But that's ok, few people will learn it and I will look from the sidelines until an acessible opportunity reveals itself.
If it doesn't get acessible, well, it probably will be some niche tech like COBOL. Pays awesomelly, but not my jam. That is winning for some people.
So many possible scenarios. You or someone else will try to expand and deflect on a single one, won't you? I know you will. No crystal ball, just intuition.
So, I will fucking learn what I can learn, what I like to learn, and I will hope I can survive on what it pays. That is winning in my books (at least on such narrow economic definition of it).
I like LLMs, but the good part is in training. Just using it is kind of... being an user. I can do that without faking as if it were truly learning it.
You are presenting an economic angle. I won't ignore it, but there is more to it for me.
I agree that situations are much more complex than an economic analysis. And I'm completely onboard with doing the things that take your interest. I do agree with most of the points you're making, and for some I can clarify the direction of my thoughts:
> But what are the fundamentals for LLM? Hype rarely reveals them right away.
I think this is true, and that it is actually a core component of hype: it is not interested in fundamentals. This is true for hype of unproven things, but is also true for hype of proven things (e.g. the iPhone). When I compare the hype around AI to Crypto I see AI has having a much stronger case for "there are fundamentals here". However when I compare them BOTH to the iPhone, it's a different story.
The iPhone already existed when its hype intensified. In this way the hype doesn't really need to "materialise", the thing is already proven, and the hype is the world exploring a thing that exists, not a thing that is promised (e.g. Crypto) or partially-proven (e.g. AI).
> If it doesn't get acessible, well, it probably will be some niche tech like COBOL. Pays awesomelly, but not my jam. That is winning for some people.
I agree, and this is not dissimilar from:
> So, I will fucking learn what I can learn, what I like to learn, and I will hope I can survive on what it pays. That is winning in my books (at least on such narrow economic definition of it).
This sounds to me a lot like the acting profession. People do it because they love it, even though getting gigs is hard, stable income is hard, callbacks are rare, there are skill and relationship and economic ceilings everywhere, but breaking through implies large wins in all of those domains and more.
I don't at all begrudge people for making low-odds bets - I have a number of them myself, just in other places - but I think assessing your bets is important.
> Premise, reality, etc. So maleable.
This is where I pretty strongly disagree. [Assuming you mean "promise"] promises are extremely malleable, but that doesn't make them valuable. In fact I would say it reduces their value, and not realising this is exactly what grifters and dodgy salespeople (etc) hope for.
Reality is not malleable. This is the reason many people who have not bought into the hype keep asking for examples of where AI has is useful. They're not necessarily trying to suggest that it won't ever reach the heights the hype claims (though some certainly are suggesting that). But hype is presented as value NOW, and while reality may change over time, I think a lot of people RIGHT NOW see AI as either not helpful to them, or detrimental to industries broadly (visual art in particular).
It's worth noting though that these two views are somewhat contradictory: we say that it is detrimental right now but also that it is not useful right now. It can be both but the argument is naturally weak.
For my part: I'm starting to find AI enormously useful for search and self-instruction purposes. It's essentially replaced StackOverflow and related sites for me.
But that reality for me doesn't match what the hype says is currently happening. So I consider it a high risk area until the situation changes. The fact that it IS hyped so much is a counter-signal to me that suggests I shouldn't believe everything that is being said until I start seeing strong evidence.
Hmm I think I see what you mean - and that's fair.
I guess I'm a bit too conservative to trust I'd get out soon enough (in financial investment, or work time spent) if the hype doesn't materialise. And if it does, there's always time to learn a new domain, etc.
Fancy me pushing into the Late Majority of the bell curve. Must be getting old.
The longer the hype goes on - which is to say the longer it takes to demonstrate the hype is actually reality - the more people become more heavily invested in it.
If the hype never materialises, you basically build a larger and larger black swan when the crash arrives. The people who win are the few who got out early enough, and everyone else who ignored the hype.
If the hype does eventuate, the number of people you're now competing with in a new market is proportional to the length of time it took to eventuate, because for all those people that were onboard, some of them would enter the space in competition, not just as consumers. Again, the only outsized winners are those who got out early enough. The rest are now just working BAU. Like everyone else who ignored the hype.
In both cases, you're just as good or better off ignoring the hype because the chances of you winning big are tiny (unless you're a billionaire, but in that case you were already winning anyway).