Continuous melted silica coating is fine, but how does one account for all the movement, bends and vagaries of the high seas, especially for something that is so brittle?
Sad thing about Apple is that this was designed by a huge design team and about a million keynote presentations to execs that sounded exactly like this.
Above is the press release. AI comes up 3 times, including the title. Release talks about AI-Driven platform to streamline operations of franchisees. Ok fine. But how exactly does AI enhance operations at the franchisee level? Especially if all they are providing as part of the SaaS are "Backed by artificial intelligence, Byte by Yum! offers franchisees leading technology capabilities with advantaged economics made possible by the scale of Yum!"
I mean, sure, if at their corporate office, they are using data analysis to predict demand and allocate resources or raw materials to improve profitability, ok. But that can be done quite effectively with statistical analysis.
Where exactly does AI come into the picture is unclear.
Yet, the slides show this as some sort of a monumental achievement, especially highlighting "25000 restaurants are using at-least 1 product". Sure, they are going to use, if that is what the franchise owner provides them, probably for additional cost.
Yum brand has 61000 restaurants as per their website. Looks like they rolled out a new solution, and about 1/3rd have been successful in adopting the new platform. Others may be in the line to do the same. Is this related to AI, or is this related to regular software changes / updates / revamps?
This strikes so close to the infamous Dropbox comment [1].
The common interactions restaurants have with technology is in bookings and online menu presentation. The latter historically required hiring a lightweight web dev. That’s now irrelevant.
The person you're responding to is a pretty prolific poster here. Often about financial matters. And well before good text models would have been useful.
Corporates are going to talk about the current in-vogue thing always.
They talked about Blockchain.
They talked about crypto
They talked about anything that when not spoken about made the investors feel the board is behind in the world.
> 72 Enterprise AI Adoption = Rising Priority…Bank of America – Erica Virtual Assistant (6/18)
Ok fine. People are using it. 2 important questions. Did the users have other choices, over which they chose this. Did the users feel happier than other methods.
Without this data, this is just feeding the hype train.
At some point I eyeballed a comparison to WhatsApp/Instagram/Snapchat growth, and IIRC although it was within the same order of magnitude, it still didn’t reach the rate of growth of those hypergrowth social apps.
India School of Business, one of the highest ranked business schools in India, is offering leadership courses with a touch of AI, for as little as 10 lakh rupees (about 11000 USD). For a majority of IT folk in India, that is a very reasonable amount for a course from a very reputed institute.
Many IT folk here are scared to the core about their jobs and there has been a mass movement towards AI certificates. While the courses teach the basics, none of them are at a university level. Most of the students are only users of tools though.
Would you call them AI developers? Meh. They get by. Most of the work in India is back-office work anyway, and these AI engineers end up doing data related tasks mostly.
Very few are actually building worthwhile AI stuff.
At first glance its like Hollywood movies announcing they're the best selling of all time, ignoring inflation. In other words a ratchet just to get clicks.
However this is relevant because this is an investor report helping people forecast, and this stat helps calibrate readers expectations of just how fast a product can scale in this day & age, using a relevant comparison of products in the same category that when launched offered the same step change in value.
My gripe is not with relevancy of the data, its with the chosen comparison. Comparing with Google at the beginning of the internet revolution, to now with billions of internet enabled devices across the world, is not a fair comparison and does not give any meaningful insight.
but that’s precisely the point and it does give insight. Google scaled off of existing infrastructure like computers. Computers scale off of existing infrastructure like electricity.
The point is to compare current era of scaling to the previous era and see how much faster it is.
It’s not comparing Google to Open Ai. It’s comparing the environment that produced Google to the environment that produced Open Ai.
It’s kind of obvious that new eras will produce faster scaling. But what if you ran the numbers and it wasn’t true?
There are plenty of times when this happens, the obvious is actually something different. This time isn’t the case but that’s the point of research, to back up common sense with evidence.
Also, it is very different to know that it is faster vs it is 5.5x faster. The 5.5x might not be completely accurate but it’s more in depth than just your intuition.
There is wisdom in simple, profound statements that open up new lines of thought. But There is also wisdom in doing research to make things you already know quantified and more concrete.
One example of research being wisdom is demographics. It’s one thing to know that there are more whites than blacks in the US, it’s another thing to know that there are 200m whites and 40m blacks. The numbers shed light into precision and also validate or clarify your thinking. For instance maybe you thought that blacks should be the second largest demographic since they have been here longest. Not so, Hispanic is at around 60m. Or maybe you knew that already. But if you wanted to argue with others about demographic growth and what is actually happening in immigration, knowing the numbers is wisdom, and going off of intuition leads to “they took my job” hot takes.
If you continue reading, they're comparing ChatGPT with more companies than just Google. TikTok and Fortnite are also included for example, both came much later so I'm guessing you'll feel it is a bit fairer of comparison.
Yes? With internet access being more prevalent than ever, it is expected that new product categories will have faster adoption. This demonstrates how much faster using ChatGPT and Google as proxies for their respective product categories.
It’s not a contest that needs to be adjudicated fairly, it’s a report on the state of today and looking forward. So yes, the gazillion phones are definitely relevant.
I also wonder how much of ChatGPT's usage is to basically cheat on homework. Basically 100% of the users of ChatGPT I know mostly use it to do their homework for them.
Maybe this will turn out to be a valuable user segment, but I'm not sure.
I saw another one recently that said something like "ChatGPT has 350 millions unique visits per month, if it were a country, it would be the 3rd largest in the world"
This may be my single biggest pet peeve. I think of this problem more broadly every time I see some new movie is the highest grossing movie of all time. No shit, Sherlock. More people, more screens, more movie theaters, inflation... the record is always going to be broken.
I hate this so much I actually ran the numbers and saw that per capita box office revenues have remained generally stable since the 1980s.
Yes. The question isn’t which team is better. The question is how fast they can grow. Similar companies in Pakistan and America will grow disparately. Same for companies on the Internet in 1998 versus, practically, 2022. That isn't fair. But nobody cares about fair, we’re measuring what’s true. It’s fair, from those data, to conclude that the latter should beat the former's record, whether separated by space or time.
(You correctly conclude, from that slide, that Google grew in a less favourable environment than OpenAI et al. You just need to take it one step further into the potential rate for growth and disruption today versus in the past. Put another way, Google could be disrupted quicker than it could disrupt.)
A majority of which will go to already rich people.
Its a sad state now, and a sad state in the future for humanity, where technology enables and accelerates accumulation of wealth, aided and abetted by the very consumers it consumes.
> value out of AI (specifically ChatGPT and Midjourney)
The one area I would agree that AI and ML tools have been surprisingly good, art generation.
But then, I see the flood of AI generated pictures and overall, feel it has made a already troublesome world, even more troublesome. I am starting to see the "the picture is AI made, or AI modified" excuses coming into mainstream.
A picture now, has lost all meaning.
> be useful for “thinking” or analyzing a piece of writing
This, I am highly skeptical of. If you train an LLM with words of "trains can fly", then it spits that out. They may be good as summarizing or search tools, but to claim them to be "thinking" and "analyzing", nah.
The fact that most ai art is generic garbage just reflects the lack of imagination most people have when making it. Sad but true. The actual tools themselves are incredible.
And I meant myself thinking and analyzing a piece of writing with the help of ChatGPT, not ChatGPT itself “thinking.” (Although I frankly think this is somewhat of an irrelevant point, if the machine is thinking.) Because I have absolutely gained tons of new insights and knowledge by asking ChatGPT to analyze an idea and suggest similar concepts.
Not sure what you mean by testing them. I specifically mean knowledge, historical facts, new books and philosophers to study, etc. I have discovered new writers that I didn’t know about because ChatGPT suggested them.
And likewise, using AI to critique a piece of writing is already “testing it,” as it definitely makes useful suggestions.
reply