&gt; It&#x27;s you.Not just him.&gt; But it&#x27;s a major focus of the industry right now, involving a genuinely novel and promising new class of tools, so the posts belong here and the high engagement that props them up seems expected.In your opinion (and admittedly others), but that doesn&#x27;t make the overhype any less tiresome. Yes it is novel technology, but there&#x27;s alway novel technology, and it isn&#x27;t all in one area, but you wouldn&#x27;t know it by what hits the front page these days.Anyway, it&#x27;s useless to shake fists at the clouds. This hype will pass, just like all the others before it, and the discussion can again be proportional to the relevance of the topic.

It&#x27;s you.The AI discussions can indeed be repetitive and tiresome here, especially for regulars, but they already seem to be downweighted and clear off the front page quite fast.But it&#x27;s a major focus of the industry right now, involving a genuinely novel and promising new class of tools, so the posts belong here and the high engagement that props them up seems expected.

How does any of that apply to this particular article? Isn&#x27;t a broader historical perspective exactly what&#x27;s needed if you want to be free from the immediate hype cycle?One of my biggest irritations with HN comment sections is how frequently people seem to want to ignore the specific interesting thing an article is about and just express uninteresting and repetitive generic opinions about the general topic area instead.

that&#x27;s not really a justification in my view. The entire education industry is complicit in this circus. It&#x27;s not just engineers hoping to get a payday it&#x27;s academics too that are hoping to get funding and tenure.CACM was totally complicit in spreading the blockchain hype: 
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;cacm.acm.org&#x2F;?s=blockchain" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;cacm.acm.org&#x2F;?s=blockchain</a>That said, I&#x27;m not hating the player, people gotta eat. But I totally lack appreciation for the game.

It&#x27;s a CACM article. Without having read this one, I&#x27;d say CACM articles on HN are absolutely appropriate.

Honestly I&#x27;m intrigued on why you don&#x27;t rate LLM. Arguably the main reason AI got out from its winter is the emergence of LLM.

Well AI probably is the future. Might not necessarily be LLMs (I personally don&#x27;t rate LLMs) but enough people are interested in it nowadays that it&#x27;s almost certain AGI will happen in our lifetimes.

&gt; I don’t understand how a business model that makes money pops out on the other endTractors and farming.By turning what is traditionally a labour intensive product into a capital intensive one.For now, the farmers who own tractors will beat the farmers who need to hire, house and retain workers (or half a dozen children).This goes well for quite some time, where you can have 3 people handle acres &amp; acres.I&#x27;ll be around explaining how coffee beans can&#x27;t be picked by a tractor or how vanilla can&#x27;t be pollinated with it.

&gt; I don’t understand how a business model that makes money pops out on the other end.What issues do you see?I pay for ChatGPT and for cursor and to me that&#x27;s money very well spent.I imagine tools like cursor will become common for other text intensive industries, like law, soon.Agreed that the hype can be over the top, but these are valuable productivity tools, so I have some trouble understanding where you&#x27;re coming from.

good point about the business model. probably AI has more even the ones reaping the rewards are only 4 or 5 big corps.It seems with crypto the business &quot;benefits&quot; were mostly adversarial (winners were those doing crimes on the darknet, or to allow ransomware operators to get paid). The underlying blockchain Tech itself though failed to replace transactions in a database.The main value for AI today seems to be generative Tech to improve the quality of Deepfakes or to help everyone in Business write their communication with an even more &quot;neutral&quot; non-human like voice, free of any emotion, almost psychopathic. Like the dudes who are writing about their achievements on LinkedIn in 3rd person, ... Only now it&#x27;s psychopathy enabled by the machine.Also I&#x27;ve seen people who, without AI are barely literate, are now sending emails that look like they&#x27;ve been penned by a post-doc in English literature. The result is it&#x27;s becoming a lot harder to separate the morons, and knuckle-draggers from those who are worth reaching out and talking to.yes old man yelling at cloud.

Crypto is coming back for another heist. Will probably die a bit once Trump finishes his term

Nah, it’s not just you.AI is really neat. I don’t understand how a business model that makes money pops out on the other end.At least crypto cashed out on NFTs for a while.

My problem is the abuse of the term AI to a point where it has lost all meaning. I&#x27;d be all for a ban on the term in favour of the specific method driving the &#x27;intelligence&#x27; as I would rule out some of qualifying simple because they are not capable of making intelligent decisions, even if they can make complex ones (looking at you random forest).

every other article these days on this site is about AI. And it&#x27;s incredibly tedious and annoying.Isn&#x27;t it enough that clueless marketers who get their Tech knowledge from businessinsider and bloomberg are constantly harping on about AI.Seems we as a community have resigned or given up in this battle against common sense. Maybe long ago. Still there should be some form of moderation penalizing these shill posts that only glorify AI as being the future, ... the same way that not everything about crypto or the blockchain ended up on the FP. Seems with AI we&#x27;re looking the other way and are OK with it?Or maybe it&#x27;s me.

Threads, yes. We had one Symbolics 3600, the infamous refrigerator-sized personal computer, at the aerospace company. But it wasn&#x27;t worth the trouble. Real work was done with Franz LISP on a VAX and then on Sun workstations.There were a lot of places that tried a bit of &#x27;80s &quot;AI&quot;, but didn&#x27;t accomplish much.

Quite incorrect, even smaller colleges like in Greeley Colorado had Symbolics machines and there are threads of Expert Systems all throughout the industry.The industry as a whole was smaller though.The word sense disambiguation problem did kill a lot of it pretty quickly though.

The 1980s AI &quot;boom&quot; was tiny.In the 1980s, AI was a few people at Stanford, a few people at CMU, a few people at MIT, and a scattering of people elsewhere. There were maybe a half dozen startups and none of them got very big.

We&#x27;re seeing artificial life come back as non-player characters in video games.

&gt; Artificial life fizzled as a meta disciplineI&#x27;ve wondered for a while if Artificial Life is in its own winter, waiting for someone to apply the lessons of scale we learned from neural nets.

Between the Booms: AI in Winter – Communications of the ACM