Re:Fadell is right, IMO... (Score 0)

Every time I look at the AI tech rolling out, I find myself either impressed or totally unimpressed, mostly based on how targeted they got with it.

I think the hallucination problem is going to be an integral part of this type of AI. It's never going to be "solved" because it's part of how it functions. All they can do is keep trying to put "rails" on it, trying to ensure it doesn't go off the proverbial road this way or that way, at different points, so it gives desired results.

That tells me, this tech needs to be constrained to very limited use-cases. EG. You can probably get it to suggest good ad-copy for your product listings, eliminating a need to hand-type descriptions on an online web store. In that situation, you're only using the AI to process a controllable/limited set of data, such as known wording for appealing product descriptions that were already written before.

But you probably DON'T want to just bolt a "does it all" ChatGPT type program on to your web store, to do this for people! You want it to run a sandboxed and heavily "gimped" one that only knows things related to product listings.

I feel like all this CPU power they're burning, building the all purpose AI trying to suck up ALL the info is misguided and will just result in another tech bubble bursting in a few years. The funding will run out and they won't be able to show a profit after all of the spending.... The value here is in writing "Mini AI" apps that are trained in targeted, smaller datasets, to do specific tasks.

Exactly this : apps that are trained in targeted, smaller datasets, to do specific tasks

I call it a waste of ressources theses LLM, we could do so much more usefull specialised AI for specific stuff like health related proiductivity tools that would be a improvment to our stressed medical systems. it does work.