• masterspace@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    This is honestly a trash article. It can be summarized as:

    “Microsoft, a trillion dollar corporation that makes around $150 billion in pure profit, every single year, is tempering expectations around AI, BUT then why are they still investing $12B dollars in it, that makes no sense!”.

    Like, they’re tempering expectations around AGI revolutionizing the economy, not saying AI is trash and theres no value whatsoever in it.

    • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      15 hours ago

      It’s also from Feb.

      I’ve been noticing a few articles lately that were several months old, yet commenters don’t seem to notice or care. I do often wonder what percentage of Lemmy is dead internet bots circle jerking about how bad AI is.

      • apotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Eh, some people miss the initial news cycle on things. I can’t speak to why old articles are being shared, but as for the people engaging with them, I think thats totally normal.

        • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          Yeah, my last statement was more of a tangent. Just something I wonder in general. Because you know it’s gotta be a thing.

          Yeah, it’s normal for people to engage with the latest posts. But also, as far as the news cycle for AI goes, there have been like 10 developments since Feb that completely change the climate that the article was posted in. I think that’s my main issue; people are making speculations about what this means, when we’re already 4 months in the future (which feels like a decade).