▲ 720 ▼ Microsoft laying off about 6,000 people, or 3% of its workforce (www.cnbc.com) submitted 1 year ago by aramova@infosec.pub to c/technology@lemmy.world 223 comments fedilink hide all child comments cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/29608536
[–] jenesaisquoi@feddit.org 6 points 1 year ago (1 child) The stock reflects peoples beliefs, not facts permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -1 points 1 year ago (2 children) And if people’s beliefs are that their AI deals are good, prices will go up. That’s ROI baby! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Wooki@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) No, that is not ROI, that would be growth above the normal growth for products and services. Problem being that they are just spinning normal growth as AI growth. Internally, they will not be seeing the growth realised. Billions spent and for what? A word predictor that is benchmarked at halucinating 80-90% of the time. Its simply appauling value when the content users get is wrong 80-90% of time, realised or otherwise. Utilization will be starting out high and falling off a cliff risking deepening reputational damage on the back of the thriving open source community. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Where are you getting your 80-90% hallucinations figure from? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Wooki@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Recent research study I read that looked reasonable, it was posted here on lemmy. I'll try and find it when I have time and edit this post. permalink fedilink source parent [–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago *For now permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au -1 points 1 year ago (2 children) And if people’s beliefs are that their AI deals are good, prices will go up. That’s ROI baby! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Wooki@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) No, that is not ROI, that would be growth above the normal growth for products and services. Problem being that they are just spinning normal growth as AI growth. Internally, they will not be seeing the growth realised. Billions spent and for what? A word predictor that is benchmarked at halucinating 80-90% of the time. Its simply appauling value when the content users get is wrong 80-90% of time, realised or otherwise. Utilization will be starting out high and falling off a cliff risking deepening reputational damage on the back of the thriving open source community. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Where are you getting your 80-90% hallucinations figure from? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Wooki@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Recent research study I read that looked reasonable, it was posted here on lemmy. I'll try and find it when I have time and edit this post. permalink fedilink source parent [–] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago *For now permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Wooki@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) No, that is not ROI, that would be growth above the normal growth for products and services. Problem being that they are just spinning normal growth as AI growth. Internally, they will not be seeing the growth realised. Billions spent and for what? A word predictor that is benchmarked at halucinating 80-90% of the time. Its simply appauling value when the content users get is wrong 80-90% of time, realised or otherwise. Utilization will be starting out high and falling off a cliff risking deepening reputational damage on the back of the thriving open source community. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Where are you getting your 80-90% hallucinations figure from? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Wooki@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Recent research study I read that looked reasonable, it was posted here on lemmy. I'll try and find it when I have time and edit this post. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Where are you getting your 80-90% hallucinations figure from? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Wooki@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Recent research study I read that looked reasonable, it was posted here on lemmy. I'll try and find it when I have time and edit this post. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Wooki@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Recent research study I read that looked reasonable, it was posted here on lemmy. I'll try and find it when I have time and edit this post. permalink fedilink source parent