I’m waiting for the cheap graphic cards
quantum is gunna be everywhere mmw
Quantum computing, probably.
Problem is, it has the potential to be actual reality. Tech bros need their products to be 99% blue-sky hype to get their financing, and they can’t risk some nerd going “well actually what you’re suggesting can’t be done any more efficiently on a quantum computer than you can do now”.
AI is here to stay but I can’t wait to see it get past the point where every app has to have their own AI shoehorned in regardless of what the app is. Sick of it.
I do feel that, unlike Crypto, AI (or, to drop the buzzwords, LLMs and other machine-learning based language processors and parsers) will end up having a place in the world.
As it is NOW, the AI hype train is definitely an investment bubble and it will definitely explode in a glorious fashion eventually. Taking a lot of people down with it.
But unlike Crypto, AI does – It like does things, you know? Even if I personally feel like it’s mostly only good for a toy, all my attempts to use it for anything society would deem “valuable” were frustrated, but at least I can RP with it when my friends aren’t available. It is a thing that exists and can be used.
Crypto was funny because it was literally useless. Just an incredibly wasteful techno-fetishistic speculative vehicle with precisely zero shame about being that.
As for what’s next, I think Quantum Computing might be it. That is, assuming the Tech Industry even survives the bubble’s burst in its current form. Because everyone in the industry is putting all their eggs including theoretical eggs that haven’t even been laid, and in fact there’s not even a chicken in this AI hype train. And even with AI becoming part of people’s lives, as I predict it indeed will, when the bubble does burst it might end up hitting the reset button on who is truly in charge of things.
I hate to break it to you, but AI isn’t going anywhere, it’s only going to accelerate. There is no comparison to NFT’s.
Hint: the major governments of the world were never scrambling to produce the best, most powerful NFT’s.
That internet fad is gonna die any day now! And who’s really going to use iPhones? They’ll never take off!
Reminds me of Blockchain
According to new research from Deloitte, 74 percent of large companies (with sales over $500 million) see a “compelling business case” for blockchain technology.
Indeed, from supply chain management and regulatory monitoring to recruiting and healthcare, organizations are applying blockchain to their business models to revolutionize how they track and verify transactions.
It’s not a fake or fundamentally useless technology, but everyone who doesn’t understand it is rushing to figure out how they’re gonna claim to use it.
Yeah, when someone just describes blockchain, saying “I guess we could use it for supply chain tracking or healthcare tracking or whatever” is a reasonable first impression.
The problems show up the second you start thinking about how to actually implement the damn thing. You don’t need a blockchain for logistics or healthcare tracking. It has no inherent advantage over regular databases. It doesn’t solve organisational issues. It’s just a slow trustless distributed append-only database. It’s good when you need a trustless distributed append-only database! Most people don’t need one.
Same thing with AI technologies, just a bit different in that it’s somewhat more useful. They’re good and useful technologies and they have plenty of perfectly valid usecases. Then the tech bros started going “Maybe we could use AI for some weird wacky obscure niche and charge a lot of money for it?” or “we’re going this wacky crap whether you want it or not, we don’t care what it’s necessary for us to do to make it happen, and we’ll charge a lot of money for it”.
You don’t need a blockchain for logistics or healthcare tracking.
https://hbr.org/2022/01/how-walmart-canada-uses-blockchain-to-solve-supply-chain-challenges
So: A company had a problem with invoices. They made an invoice management system. The problem was solved. Wow. Never saw that coming.
Without the details, it’s hard to see how blockchain specifically was the magic ingredient. Not saying it wasn’t, just saying this was already a problem that was solved long before the blockchain.
The invoice management system is owned by the whole supply chain. It is not a database run by walmart.
The problem wasn’t solved before blockchain because centralized databases do not have the administrative flexibility to respond to a changing supply chain. A central administrator only sees one layer deep.
What if - hear me out - you build a centralised database, and then give appropriate access to all of the actors in in the system? Like most people have been doing forever?
And isn’t updating one centralised system actually more flexible than trying to manage a distributed system? Changes can easily be rolled to production when you only have one system to worry about.
then give appropriate access to all of the actors
What if the actors don’t know they will end up on your database? What if they decide to sell the end product to someone else? What you want to access the database of someone else without needing read permissions?
And isn’t updating one centralised system actually more flexible than trying to manage a distributed system?
No, because this centralised system is tailored to one particular stakeholder.
Changes can easily be rolled to production when you only have one system to worry about.
Oh yes. Centralised systems are faster cheaper and easier to maintain. But they are untrustworthy, inflexible and dominated by a single stakeholder.
I had to rewrite this because it got eaten by the browser. Sorry if this appears as a duplicate or something.
What if the actors don’t know they will end up on your database?
The whole point of the system in question was that the relevant invoice information is stored in the database. Doing business with companies generally involves clearly defined contracts. This is an organisational issue, not a technical one, and blockchain doesn’t solve it.
What if they decide to sell the end product to someone else?
If you mean that this system is harming the other company’s ability to engage in business with others, that company is only required to use the system to do business with the company that implemented this centralised system, because that’s the big company’s way of doing business. If you mean that selling end product to someone else would violate some kind of contract, that activity is happening outside of the system to begin with. This is an organisational issue, not a technical one, and blockchain doesn’t solve it.
What you want to access the database of someone else without needing read permissions?
This is a design issue, not a technical one. Nothing prevents designing the centralised system in a way that information is available to parties that need it. Nothing prevents the other company adopting a policy that such invoice information is publicly available. Blockchain doesn’t help or hinder this either way.
No, because this centralised system is tailored to one particular stakeholder.
But nothing prevents it being tailored to all stakeholders. Again, this is a design and organisational issue, not a technical one, and blockchain doesn’t inherently fix this. In traditional business systems, if some of these stakeholders have special requirements, these can be bridged over through interoperability, rather than building an unified distributed system. Invoice numbers go a long way. There’s a reason why DBAs spend a lot of time thinking about primary keys and unique identifiers.
But they are untrustworthy, inflexible and dominated by a single stakeholder.
Disagree about the latter two and I already addressed them. Trustworthiness is, again, a thing that blockchain doesn’t solve. “Trustlessness” only guarantees data/transaction immutability, it doesn’t guarantee organisational problems like fraud (as cryptocurrency market demonstrates). And if you don’t trust a company in organisational sense, why do business with them to begin with?
AI and NFT are not even close. Almost every person I know uses AI, and nobody I know used NFT even once. NFT was a marginal thing compared to AI today.
Every NFT denial:
“They’ll be useful for something soon!”
Every AI denial:
“Well then you must be a bad programmer.”
Oh, it’s gonna be so much worse. NFTs mostly just ruined sad crypto bros who were dumb enough to buy a picture of an ape. Companies are investing heavily in generative AI projects without establishing a proper use case or even its basic efficacy. ChatGPTs newest iterations are getting worse; no one has a solution to hallucinations; the energy costs are astronomical; the entire process relies on plagiarism and copyright infringement, and even if you get by all of that, consumers hate it. AI ads are met derision or revulsion, and AI customer service is universally despised.
This isn’t like NFTs. It’s more like Facebook and VR. Sure, VR has its uses, but investing heavily in unnecessary and unwanted VR tools cost Facebook billions. The difference is that when this bubble bursts, instead of just hitting Facebook, this is going to hit every single tech company.
You do realize nfts were capable of so much more than pictures but because that was the lowest effort use case that’s what the scammers started with, right?
Of course not, you just like shitting on things other people designate as safe to shit on
Yeah, I heard about most of the supposed uses in the 10 paragraphs you wrote. Anyway, since none of those came to pass, and instead a bunch or people went bankrupt buying pictures of monkeys, I’d say the usefulness of NFTs has been determined.
You know, when reddit first started, no one minded long replies, in fact they were considered a mark of excellence and understanding. Long, accurate replies were almost always the top comment in non-meme subs.
Then smart phones became popular and every idiot gained access to the web
Suddenly, around 2012, you started seeing comments disparaging long replies as being ‘nerdy’ or ‘tryhard’. On FUCKING reddit, the HOME of the nerds!
It was a real emotional whiplash to me for a place that once welcomed detailed discussion to start mocking users for creating quality reply content
That’s when I realized the internet was fucked because of people like you.
You know, when reddit first started, no one minded long replies, in fact they were considered a mark of excellence and understanding.
First of all, thank you for this. It is quite possibly the funniest sentence I’ve ever read on the internet, and I will be laughing at it for the rest of the day. The gamatical errors really give it an extra layer. Absolute perfection.
Second, quantity isn’t quality, especially when it comes to writing. If it was, editor wouldn’t be a job. The length of your comment doesn’t change the fact that it is mostly pro-NFT arguments I heard in 2023, none of which materialized. Oh, NFTs could give you instant access to an apartment? That’s super helpful in a world where lockboxes don’t exist!
Finally, despite your assumption, I don’t actually think long comments are bad; I just left a very long comment to someone who said something that was actually interesting. You also assumed I was insulting NFTs because I, “just like shitting on things other people designate as safe to shit on.” But I actually didn’t insult NFTs, I just pointed out that it bankrupted a bunch of crypto-bros. Which isn’t an opinion, its just a thing that happened. If you want to know what I actually think of NFTs, I answered that when I replied to the more interesting commenter. You’re welcome to go read it instead of making incorrect assumptions.
Anyway, if you don’t like the quality of the replies you’re getting, maybe consider the quality of the comments you’re leaving. Maybe you shouldn’t expect someone to listen to you or engage with you in good faith when you start off by insulting them. Maybe the problem is you, not everyone else.
NFT was the worst “tech” crap I have ever even heard about, like pure 100% total full scam. Kind of impressed that anyone could be so stupid they’d fall for it.
NFTs could have been great, if they had been used FOR the consumer, and not to scam them.
Best thing I can think of is to verify licenses for digital products/games. Buy a game, verify you own it like you would with a CD using an NFT, and then you can sell it again when you’re done.
Do this with serious stuff like AAA Games or Professional Software (think like borrowing a copy of Photoshop from an online library for a few days while you work on a project!) instead of monkey pictures and you could have the best of both worlds for buying physical vs buying online.
However, that might make corporations less money and completely upend modern licencing models, so no one was willing to do it.
The whole NFT/crypto currency thing is so incredibly frustrating. Like, being able to verify that a given file is unique could be very useful. Instead, we simply used the technology for scamming people.
I don’t think NFTs can do that either. Collections are copied to another contract address all the time. There isn’t a way to verify if there isn’t another copy of an NFT on the blockchain.
Copying the info on another contract doesn’t mean it’s fungible, to verify ownership you would need the NFT and to check that it’s associated to the right contract.
Let’s say digital game ownership was confirmed via NFT, the launcher wouldn’t recognize the “same” NFT if it wasn’t linked to the right contract.
But you would need a centralized authority to say which one is the “right contract”. If a centralized authority is necessary in this case, then there is less benefit of using NFTs. It’s no longer a decentralized.
Yes and no, with the whole blockchain being public it’s pretty easy to figure out which contract is the original one.
