The negativity here is a bit shocking. I mean, we're talking about a deck!
Looka like they just asked their target audience these survey questions. Which is highly biased, to say the least.
this is so cringy
Even the best models write like mediocre fiction writers at best
It still is.
I'm an artist, programmer and musician, and is no closer to being a Luddite today than five years ago, not sure why others would either. Anti-capitalist or Anti-fascist I'd understand, considering the state of the world and the current direction.
The CEO talking about wanting to roll out advertisements was one of the final nails in the coffin for me. I have exactly zero interest or patience for being subjected to advertisements on a service that I'm paying for.
Automatic and instant reject.
I'll pass
good to know on the front page though, thanks
looking up stateof.lol
AI investors have vast interest in staying on top of what’s going on. It’s wise to follow them. Everyone is biased, including you and myself.
Or given the HDD setting, HDD investors? Are you sure they weren't published by the technical people that actually analyzed the failure rates of disks? ... instead of polling for opinions from Internet strangers, on platforms that are full of bots?
Nathan Benaich has PhD in Computer and Mphil in Biology from Cambridge, and majored Biology from Oxford. He is more than qualified to discuss tech topics, a lot more than many pieces of content here on HN. Not reading him because he is an investor? Give me a break
Highly recommended reading for anyone here interested in the state of AI.
It covers multiple fronts, including research, applications, politics, and safety.
Thank you for sharing this on HN!
An example of the bias:
> shows that 95% of professionals now use AI at work or home
Obviously 95% of professionals don't use AI at work or home, and these results are heavily skewed.
There's a big difference between using it like Google and really enhancing your workflow with it by automating parts of your work.
Maybe the 33 people who said "No" doesn't know the implementation details so they assume it's not used anywhere in their daily professional life.
So, I would have to take reporting on safety with a grain of salt. That said, I do think there are a lot of other interesting insights throughout the presentation.
Looka like they just asked their target audience. Which is highly biased, to say the least. And renders their large sample almost useless.
I'd wager at least 90% of the survey respondents are Americans or live in the US, so that already skews the data a ton!
But other than that only AI use is when google forces it on me. And then gets things wrong... Which is easily found out by comparing it's output and synopsis on the links it give...