start of the article is fine I suppose but it gets pretty bad when it tries to evaluate impact
He explains that “cutting-edge AI capabilities” are now available for every company to buy for the price of standard software. But that instead of building a whole AI system, he says many firms are simply popping a chatbot interface on top of a non-AI product.
the implication here that there exists a viable company buying “cutting-edge AI capabilities” “for the price of standard software” and “building a whole AI system” with them is comical but goes unexamined
"If I asked a room of people what their definition of AI is, they would all give a different answer,” he says. “The term is used very broadly and loosely, without any clear point of reference. It is this ambiguity that is allowing AI washing to emerge.
no it isn’t. the article opens with a clear counterexample. if the ambiguity didn’t exist Amazon still could have lied about using ai, easily
“AI washing can have concerning impacts for businesses, from overpaying for technology and services to failing to meet operational objectives the AI was expected to help them achieve.”
ok, businesses can be impacted
Meanwhile, for investors it can make it harder to identify genuinely innovative companies.
ok, investors can be impacted… hard to be sympathetic to them but sure
And, says Mr Ayangar: “If consumers have unmet expectations from products that claim to offer advanced AI-driven solutions, this can erode trust in start-ups that are doing genuinely ground-breaking work.”
and consumers, ok, we’ve gone through all three types of entities that exist.
wait, what about workers? what about people being policed? what about people trying to interact with government programs using these products? why is only the holy trinity of capitalism worth mentioning?
But in the longer term, says Advika Jalan, head of research at MMC Ventures, the problem of AI washing may subside on its own.
“AI is becoming so ubiquitous - even if they’re just ChatGPT wrappers - that ‘AI-powered’ as a branding tool will likely cease to be a differentiator after some time,” she says. “It will be a bit like saying ‘we’re on the internet’.”
Meanwhile, for investors it can make it harder to identify genuinely innovative companies.
The problem here isn’t AI, it’s that the investor class is fundamentally stupid. They got lucky, either by birth or by winning the startup lottery, and they’ve convinced themselves that this means they’re vastly more perceptive, intelligent and capable than everyone else.
I’m working for a startup right now, and investment rounds feel a lot like a bunch of idiots standing around waiting to see who’ll jump first, and when one goes the rest follow, because they haven’t a fucking clue what they’re doing but desperately need to believe their peers do.
Meanwhile, for investors it can make it harder to identify genuinely innovative companies.
ok, investors can be impacted… hard to be sympathetic to them but sure
Extracted money (profit) could at least be recuperated into infrastructure; scamming the investors is good, but it should not turn into yet another corruption scheme.
start of the article is fine I suppose but it gets pretty bad when it tries to evaluate impact
the implication here that there exists a viable company buying “cutting-edge AI capabilities” “for the price of standard software” and “building a whole AI system” with them is comical but goes unexamined
no it isn’t. the article opens with a clear counterexample. if the ambiguity didn’t exist Amazon still could have lied about using ai, easily
ok, businesses can be impacted
ok, investors can be impacted… hard to be sympathetic to them but sure
and consumers, ok, we’ve gone through all three types of entities that exist.
wait, what about workers? what about people being policed? what about people trying to interact with government programs using these products? why is only the holy trinity of capitalism worth mentioning?
exercise: rewrite this passage to be about crypto
The problem here isn’t AI, it’s that the investor class is fundamentally stupid. They got lucky, either by birth or by winning the startup lottery, and they’ve convinced themselves that this means they’re vastly more perceptive, intelligent and capable than everyone else.
I’m working for a startup right now, and investment rounds feel a lot like a bunch of idiots standing around waiting to see who’ll jump first, and when one goes the rest follow, because they haven’t a fucking clue what they’re doing but desperately need to believe their peers do.
yeah it’s a BBC tech article so I’m grading it as having put anything substantial at all in front of the general audience
Extracted money (profit) could at least be recuperated into infrastructure; scamming the investors is good, but it should not turn into yet another corruption scheme.