AI agent technology likely isn’t ready for the kind of high-stakes autonomous business work Microsoft is promising.
It's unbelievable to me that tech leaders lack the insight to recognize this.
So how to explain the current AI mania being widely promoted?
I think the best fit explanation is simple con artistry. They know the product is fundamentally flawed and won't perform as being promised. But the money to be made selling the fantasy is simply too good to ignore.
In other words --- pure greed. Over the longer term, this is a weakness, not a strength.
Don’t attribute to malice that which can equally be contributed to incompetence.
I think you’re over-estimating the capabilities of these tech leaders, especially when the whole industry is repeating the same thing. At that point, it takes a lot of guts to say “No, we’re not going to buy into the hype, we’re going to wait and see” because it’s simply a matter of corporate politics: if AI fails to deliver, it fails to deliver for everyone and the people that bought into the hype can blame the consultants / whatever.
If, however, AI ended up delivering and they missed the boat, they’re going to be held accountable.
It’s much less risky to just follow industry trends. It takes a lot of technical knowledge, gut, and confidence in your own judgement to push back against an industry-wide trend at that level.
> if AI fails to deliver, it fails to deliver for everyone and the people that bought into the hype can blame the consultants / whatever.
Understatement of the year. At this point, if AI fails to deliver, the US economy is going to crash. That would not be the case if executives hadn't bought in so hard earlier on.
Pure greed would have a strong incentive to understand what the market is actually demanding in order to maximize profits.
These attempts to try to steer demand despite clear indicators that it doesn't want to go in that direction aren't just driven by greed, they're driven by abject incompetence.
Also, if the current level of AI investment and valuations aren't justified by market demand (I believe so), many of these people/companies are getting more money than they would without the unreasonable hype.
> Pure greed would have a strong incentive to understand what the market is actually demanding in order to maximize profits.
Not necessarily, just look at this clip [1] from Margin Call, an excellent movie on the GFC. As Jeremy Irons is saying in that clip, the market (as usually understood in classical economy, with producers making things for clients/customers to purchase) is of no importance to today's market economy, almost all that matters, at the hundreds of billions - multi-trillion dollars-levels, is for your company "to play the music" as best as the other (necessarily very big) market participants, "nothing more, nothing less" (again, to quote Irons in that movie).
There's nothing in it about "making what people/customers want" and all that, which is regarded as accessory, that is if it is taken into consideration at all. As another poster is mentioning in this thread, this is all the direct result of the financialization of much of the Western economy, this is how things work at this level, given these (financiliazed) inputs.
It's part of a larger economic con centered on the financial industry and the financialization of American industry. If you want this stuff to stop, you have to be hoping (or even working toward) a correction that wipes out the incumbents who absolutely are working to maintain the masqerade.
It will hurt, and they'll scare us with the idea that it will hurt, but the secret is that we get to choose where it hurts - the same as how they've gotten to choose the winners and losers for the past two decades.
> correction that wipes out the incumbents who absolutely are working to maintain the masqerade
You need to also have a robust alternative that grows quickly in the cleared space. In 2008 we got a correction that cleared the incumbents, but the ensuing decade of policy choices basically just allowed the thing to re-grow in a new form.
Given that they aren’t meeting their sales targets at all, I guess that’s a little bit of encouraging about the discernment of their customers. I’m not sure how Microsoft has managed to escape market discipline for so long.
I think on some level it is being done on the premise that further advancement requires an enormous capital investment and if they can find a way to fund that with today’s sales it will give the opportunity for the tech to get there (quite a gamble).
I have a feeling that Microsoft is setting themselves up for a serious antitrust lawsuit if they do what they are intending on. They should really be careful about introducing products into the OS that take away from all other AI shops. I fear this would cripple innovation if allowed to do so as well, since Microsoft has drastically fatter wallets than most of their competition.
Corruption is indeed going strong in the current corporate-controlled US group of lame actors posing as government indeed. At the least Trump is now regularly falling asleep - that's the best example that you can use any surrogate puppet and the underlying policies will still continue.
I was just in a thread yesterday with someone who genuinely believed that we're only seeing the beginnings of what the current breed of AI will get us, and that it's going to be as transformative as the introduction of the internet was.
Everything about the conversation felt like talking to a true believer, and there's plenty out there.
It's the hopes and dreams of the Next Big Thing after blockchain and web3 fell apart and everyone is desperate to jump on the bandwagon because ZIRP is gone and everyone who is risk averse will only bet on what everyone else is betting on.
Thus, the cycle feeds itself until the bubble pops.
1) We have barely scratched the surface of what is possible to do with existing AI technology.
2) Almost all of the money we are spending on AI now is ineffectual and wasted.
---
If you go back to the late 1990s, that is the state that most companies were at with _computers_. Huge, wasteful projects that didn't improve productivity at all. It took 10 years of false starts sometimes to really get traction.
It's not "fundamentally flawed". It is brilliant at what it does. What is flawed is how people are applying it to solve specific problems. It isn't a "do anything" button that you can just push. Every problem you apply AI to still has a ton of engineering work that needs to be done to make it useful.
You’re correct, you need to learn how to use it. But for some reason HN has an extremely strong anti-AI sentiment, unless it’s about fundamental research.
At this point, I consider these AI tools to be an invaluable asset to my work in the same way that search engines are. It’s integrated into my work. But it takes practice on how to use it correctly.
My suspicion is because they (HN) are very concerned this technology is pushing hard into their domain expertise and feel threatened (and, rightfully so).
AI agent technology likely isn’t ready for the kind of high-stakes autonomous business work Microsoft is promising.
It's unbelievable to me that tech leaders lack the insight to recognize this.
So how to explain the current AI mania being widely promoted?
I think the best fit explanation is simple con artistry. They know the product is fundamentally flawed and won't perform as being promised. But the money to be made selling the fantasy is simply too good to ignore.
In other words --- pure greed. Over the longer term, this is a weakness, not a strength.
Don’t attribute to malice that which can equally be contributed to incompetence.
I think you’re over-estimating the capabilities of these tech leaders, especially when the whole industry is repeating the same thing. At that point, it takes a lot of guts to say “No, we’re not going to buy into the hype, we’re going to wait and see” because it’s simply a matter of corporate politics: if AI fails to deliver, it fails to deliver for everyone and the people that bought into the hype can blame the consultants / whatever.
If, however, AI ended up delivering and they missed the boat, they’re going to be held accountable.
It’s much less risky to just follow industry trends. It takes a lot of technical knowledge, gut, and confidence in your own judgement to push back against an industry-wide trend at that level.
> if AI fails to deliver, it fails to deliver for everyone and the people that bought into the hype can blame the consultants / whatever.
Understatement of the year. At this point, if AI fails to deliver, the US economy is going to crash. That would not be the case if executives hadn't bought in so hard earlier on.
It's mass delusion
> In other words --- pure greed.
Pure greed would have a strong incentive to understand what the market is actually demanding in order to maximize profits.
These attempts to try to steer demand despite clear indicators that it doesn't want to go in that direction aren't just driven by greed, they're driven by abject incompetence.
This isn't pure greed, it's stupid greed.
Pure greed is stupid greed.
Also, if the current level of AI investment and valuations aren't justified by market demand (I believe so), many of these people/companies are getting more money than they would without the unreasonable hype.
> Pure greed would have a strong incentive to understand what the market is actually demanding in order to maximize profits.
Not necessarily, just look at this clip [1] from Margin Call, an excellent movie on the GFC. As Jeremy Irons is saying in that clip, the market (as usually understood in classical economy, with producers making things for clients/customers to purchase) is of no importance to today's market economy, almost all that matters, at the hundreds of billions - multi-trillion dollars-levels, is for your company "to play the music" as best as the other (necessarily very big) market participants, "nothing more, nothing less" (again, to quote Irons in that movie).
There's nothing in it about "making what people/customers want" and all that, which is regarded as accessory, that is if it is taken into consideration at all. As another poster is mentioning in this thread, this is all the direct result of the financialization of much of the Western economy, this is how things work at this level, given these (financiliazed) inputs.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOYi4NzxlhE
It's part of a larger economic con centered on the financial industry and the financialization of American industry. If you want this stuff to stop, you have to be hoping (or even working toward) a correction that wipes out the incumbents who absolutely are working to maintain the masqerade.
It will hurt, and they'll scare us with the idea that it will hurt, but the secret is that we get to choose where it hurts - the same as how they've gotten to choose the winners and losers for the past two decades.
> correction that wipes out the incumbents who absolutely are working to maintain the masqerade
You need to also have a robust alternative that grows quickly in the cleared space. In 2008 we got a correction that cleared the incumbents, but the ensuing decade of policy choices basically just allowed the thing to re-grow in a new form.
This assumes fair competition in the tech industry, which has evaporated without a path for return years ago.
It's like when a child doesn't want something, you "give them a choice": would you like to put on your red or white shoes?
They've gotten away with shipping garbage for years and still getting paid for it. They think we're all stupid.
Given that they aren’t meeting their sales targets at all, I guess that’s a little bit of encouraging about the discernment of their customers. I’m not sure how Microsoft has managed to escape market discipline for so long.
They think we're all stupid.
As time goes by, I'm starting to think they may be right more than they're wrong.
And this is a sad and depressing statement about humanity.
Fake it till you make it.
I think on some level it is being done on the premise that further advancement requires an enormous capital investment and if they can find a way to fund that with today’s sales it will give the opportunity for the tech to get there (quite a gamble).
I have a feeling that Microsoft is setting themselves up for a serious antitrust lawsuit if they do what they are intending on. They should really be careful about introducing products into the OS that take away from all other AI shops. I fear this would cripple innovation if allowed to do so as well, since Microsoft has drastically fatter wallets than most of their competition.
Under the current US administration the only thing Microsoft is getting is numerous piles of taxpayer bailouts.
Corruption is indeed going strong in the current corporate-controlled US group of lame actors posing as government indeed. At the least Trump is now regularly falling asleep - that's the best example that you can use any surrogate puppet and the underlying policies will still continue.
> So how to explain the current AI mania being widely promoted?
> I think the best fit explanation is simple con artistry.
Yes, perhaps, but many industries are built on a little bit of technology and a lot of stories.
I think of it as us all being caught in one giant infomercial.
Meanwhile as long as investors buy the hype it's a great story to use for triming payroll.
> In other words --- pure greed.
It's the opposite; it's FOMO.
They want to exfiltrate the customers' data under the guise of getting better "AI" responses.
No company or government in the EU should use this spyware.
It was the same with the cloud adoption. And I still think that cloud is expensive, wasteful and in the vast majority of cases not needed.
Imagine your supplier effectively telling you that they don't even value you (and your money) enough to bother a real human.
I was just in a thread yesterday with someone who genuinely believed that we're only seeing the beginnings of what the current breed of AI will get us, and that it's going to be as transformative as the introduction of the internet was.
Everything about the conversation felt like talking to a true believer, and there's plenty out there.
It's the hopes and dreams of the Next Big Thing after blockchain and web3 fell apart and everyone is desperate to jump on the bandwagon because ZIRP is gone and everyone who is risk averse will only bet on what everyone else is betting on.
Thus, the cycle feeds itself until the bubble pops.
Two things can be true:
1) We have barely scratched the surface of what is possible to do with existing AI technology. 2) Almost all of the money we are spending on AI now is ineffectual and wasted.
---
If you go back to the late 1990s, that is the state that most companies were at with _computers_. Huge, wasteful projects that didn't improve productivity at all. It took 10 years of false starts sometimes to really get traction.
All these boosters think we're on the leading edge of an exponential, when it's way more likely that we're on the midpoint to tail of a logistic
It's not "fundamentally flawed". It is brilliant at what it does. What is flawed is how people are applying it to solve specific problems. It isn't a "do anything" button that you can just push. Every problem you apply AI to still has a ton of engineering work that needs to be done to make it useful.
You’re correct, you need to learn how to use it. But for some reason HN has an extremely strong anti-AI sentiment, unless it’s about fundamental research.
At this point, I consider these AI tools to be an invaluable asset to my work in the same way that search engines are. It’s integrated into my work. But it takes practice on how to use it correctly.
My suspicion is because they (HN) are very concerned this technology is pushing hard into their domain expertise and feel threatened (and, rightfully so).
I'd consider hallucinations to be a fundamental flaw that currently sets hard limits on the current utility of LLMs in any context.
Have we finally reached peak AI already? In that event we will see the falling down phase next.
If you click through to the article shared yesterday[0]:
> Microsoft denies report of lowering targets for AI software sales growth
This Ars Technica article cites the same reporting as that Reuters piece but doesn't (yet) include anything about MSFT's rebuttal.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46135388
Top signal. Phase transition is imminent.
made up story
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46135388