/
Navigation
Chronicles
Browse all articles
Explore
Semantic exploration
Research
Entity momentum
Nexus
Correlations & relationships
Story Arc
Topic evolution
Drift Map
Semantic trajectory animation
Posts
Analysis & commentary
Pulse API
Tech news intelligence API
Browse
Entities
Companies, people, products, technologies
Domains
Browse by publication source
Handles
Browse by social media handle
Detection
Concept Search
Semantic similarity search
High Impact Stories
Top coverage by position
Sentiment Analysis
Positive/negative coverage
Anomaly Detection
Unusual coverage patterns
Analysis
Rivalry Report
Compare two entities head-to-head
Semantic Pivots
Narrative discontinuities
Crisis Response
Event recovery patterns
Connected
Search: /
Command: ⌘K
Embeddings: large
TEXXR

Chronicles

The story behind the story

days · browse · Enter similar · o open

A bear case for the AI industry, as the sectors LLMs seem capable of disrupting so far, like writing, digital art, and programming help, are not very lucrative

Gemini and the supply paradox of AI  —  Another day, another huge new AI model revealed.  This time it's Google's Gemini.

The Intrinsic Perspective Erik Hoel

Discussion

  • @fxshaw Frank Shaw on threads
    It's a take all right.
  • @harbourfordyce.bsky.social Harbour Fordyce on bluesky
    Ironically, human labor is still cheaper when it comes to creativity...?  (Or is there something about, oh, I don't know, competence?) [embedded post]
  • @erikphoel Erik Hoel on x
    This explains why economic disruption is low despite the success of the tech... because you can only automate adding to data sets, like writing, that are already massively oversupplied. Why? Because AIs basically *just* scale off of the supply-size of the data set! [image]
  • @suhail @suhail on x
    The internet is *flooded* with AI generated stuff. It's going to be 100x next year.
  • @danielcanueto Daniel Cañueto on x
    “Call it the supply paradox of AI: the easier it is to train an AI to do something, the less economically valuable that thing is. After all, the huge supply of the thing is how the AI got so good in the first place.”
  • @erikphoel Erik Hoel on x
    Examples: AIs are good at writing Reddit comments, but producing Reddit comments is worth almost nothing. AIs are good at generating digital art, but the market for digital art is tiny. AIs are good at writing essays, but it's extremely hard to make a living writing essays.
  • @dhh @dhh on x
    I haven't found much use for AI in full-on writing large bodies for code for me, but I continue to be astounded by its ability to be a superb pair programmer. It knows all the APIs, we never need to Google anything, and its suggestions are often delightful. A+.
  • @ichbinilya Ilya Lozovsky on x
    An interesting take by @erikphoel on whether AI is about to take all our jobs (and moneys). In short: The things it's best at, at least for now, aren't lucrative. https://open.substack.com/...
  • @roberthoglund Robert Höglund on x
    Spot on. “Call it the supply paradox of AI: the easier it is to train an AI to do something, the less economically valuable that thing is. After all, the huge supply of the thing is how the AI got so good in the first place.” https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com / ...
  • @melmitchell1 Melanie Mitchell on x
    Very interesting essay from @erikphoel throwing a bit of cold water on the economics of generative AI. https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com / ...
  • @erikphoel Erik Hoel on x
    Is generative AI doomed to disrupt only low-revenue industries, like writing and digital art? My latest on the supply paradox: AIs get good because of massive data sets... but adding to the data set isn't lucrative, as there was already so much of it! https://www.theintrinsicpers…