If Goldman Sachs said that, than most likely the opposite is true.
What makes you say that?
Comment on Goldman Sachs: AI Is Overhyped, Wildly Expensive, and Unreliable
esaru@beehaw.org 2 months ago
If that is what Goldman Sachs says, than most likely the opposite is true.
bl4kers@beehaw.org 2 months ago
esaru@beehaw.org 2 months ago
There are studies that suggest that the information investment firms publish is not basdd on what they believe to be true, but what is good for their own internal investment strategy. And in many cases for serving their investment strategy, it benefits them to publish the opposite of what they believe is true.
bl4kers@beehaw.org 2 months ago
Intentions aside, it’s just some independent research that anyone can review and critique. If the research is bad then it should be pointed out and won’t be taken seriously, undermining any influence from Goldman Sachs now and in the future
esaru@beehaw.org 2 months ago
Goldman Sachs would not publish it that prominantly if it didn’t help their internal goals. And their intention is certainly not to help the public or their competitors. There are “independen” studies that are well made and get to opposite conclusions. They just do what serves them. I wouldn’t trust anything that they publish.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 months ago
I mean, ask pretty much anyone familiar with the workings of AI who doesn’t have a vested interest, and they’ll say the same thing.
I’d also say that it does have applications, but it’s going to take a moment for all the bullshit artists to move on to the next thing so the grown-ups can work. It’s like graphene research circa-2011.
They might also say that the moment it does work reliably we should be scared.