they are definitely not doing everything they can to increase their conversion rate.

Oh you mean like prompting users to buy extra services all the time?
Yes they are actually doing exactly that.

Of course I do, but ChatGPT still has a free option. And the basis to compare paid subscriptions when there is also a free option stand IMO.
Without a good free option, how would it be only 5% who pay? It’s exactly the same as with Youtube in that regard.

The free option is a form of advertising and allowing people to get to know the service. With Youtube the free option isn’t really free, you pay by allowing advertising.
So by that comparison Youtube is actually the worse free option of the two. And despite that more people pay for ChatGPT.
So your argument that they are not the same, actually makes ChatGPT numbers even more impressive not less.

Paying gives advantages on youtube, just the same as ChatGPT.

That’s a weird editorializing of the headline, for an article that describes wide spread use, and a market of rapidly growing value.

For instance a sentence like these:

This is no longer experimentation; it’s habit formation at an unprecedented scale.

This rapid adoption drives real dollars: In the two and a half years since OpenAI’s ChatGPT introduced the public to generative AI, consumer AI has become a multibillion-dollar market.

One of the most surprising findings? Parents are among the most engaged AI users, turning to AI for everyday help.

Even ChatGPT, with its first-mover advantage, only converts about 5% of its weekly active users into paying subscribers

Considering there’s a pretty strong free option, 5% is not bad.
How many pay for using Youtube? IDK but my guess is that it is way less than 5%.
How many pay for using search? My bet is that we are in the thousandth on that. Yet search is profitable!

State subsidies and a huge protected home market.
But to be fair, they really made the most of it. So absolutely also talent.

The article says Mac sales are declining too.
Apparently most of the decline is people that are simply ditching their PC because they don’t need it anymore.

I think this points to the idea that knowing why an answer is correct is important.

If by knowing you mean understanding, that’s consciousness like General AI or Strong AI, way beyond ordinary AI.
Otherwise of course it knows, in the sense of having learned everything by heart, but not understanding it.

it doesn’t know or understand

But that’s not what intelligence is, that’s what consciousness is.
Intelligence is not understanding shit, it’s the ability to for instance solve a problem, so a frigging calculator has a tiny degree of intelligence, but not enough for us to call it AI.
There is simply zero doubt an AI is intelligent, claiming otherwise just shows people don’t know the difference between intelligence and consciousness.

Passing an exam is a form of intelligence.
Can a good AI pass a basic exam?
YES.
Does passing an exam require consciousness?
NO.
Because an exam tests abilities of intelligence, not level of consciousness.

it can only guess at the next statistically most likely piece of information based on the data that has been fed into it. That’s not intelligence.

Except we do the exact same thing! Based on prior experience (learning) we choose what we find to be the most likely answer. And that is indeed intelligence.

Current AI does not have the reasoning abilities we have yet, but they are not completely without it, and it’s a subject that is currently worked on and improved. So current AI is actually a pretty high form of intelligence. And can sometimes out compete average humans in certain areas.

That headline is a straw man, and the article really argues on General AI, which also has consciousness.
The current state of AI is definitely intelligent, but it’s not GAI.
Bullshit headline.

anti-minority

Whatever gave you that idea?

The Danish government said on Thursday it would strengthen protection against digital imitations of people’s identities

Good call. 👍

So Iran knew EXACTLY how strong they needed to make their defenses!
Pretty stupid of the American military to give that info to a game developer, that would obviously use it.

But the information still seems valid.

From this article it sounds very likely that the bunker buster attack failed.

Both Aarhus and Copenhagen municipalities have decided this, and the ministry of Digitization is pioneering it for government administration. The decision so far primarily regards MS Office and MS cloud services, and MS Windows.
The minister has even stated that the rollout is to begin already within 3 weeks!
Also the government has decided to make guidelines to make the switch away from American software and services easier. These guidelines are meant both for public services AND private businesses.

We haven’t seen any results yet, but at least the political decision seems clear. The goal is to end dependency on American software and services for Denmark. Which is in line with a similar decision earlier this year for EU.

Yes, because some grandma is exactly the kind of people I meant. And not her stupid children or friends who might have helped her with a Linux system instead. /s

My guess is you are just butthurt, because you are part of the problem, and not the solution.

I think the difference here is that you can’t quite just put an AI tag on something, and then investors flock to give you money.
The AI companies that are invested in, are mostly companies that actually have something to show. And the biggest investment and benefactor is Nvidia that actually makes loads of money from AI products.

AI is improving at the same rate it always has

This is blatantly false, there’s a reason there is talk of the cold winter of AI, and the long walk in the desert.
The desert walk was at least 2 decades of very little progress despite big investments, the cold winter was another decade without much progress because of disillusionment so nobody wanted to invest in it.
AI has progressed more for the past 10-15 years than it did for 40 years from about the 70’s to about 2010.

For actual AI, nothing has changed.

I assume you mean strong or general AI, and that’s not what we are debating here, because that is not a reality yet.

Something that doesn’t exist obviously can’t burst.

I agree 100%, and yes there are always losers due to competition and failure to compete. Just like some companies are losing money making cars, but cars are obviously not a bubble.
Maybe the most of the hype is over for now among investors, but AFAIK Nvidia who is the biggest supplier of hardware for it, is not seeing a slowdown in demand.
So maybe it’s more a slow down of interest in the media?

Yes I think Facebook and Microsoft may lose money on this, you could call that over investing, but for it to be a bubble that burst, companies need to go down, and people lose money on it.
Otherwise you may be looking for a completely different word which is fad, a period where something is over hyped, but quickly settles down like Fidget Spinners.
.com was a bubble because a lot of people lost a lot of money, so much so that it reverberated through the entirety of financial systems globally. I don’t think we will see a financial bubble burst due to AI, that is more than 1% of that at most.
META is throwing out money like crazy on their “META” project that will never succeed, and they are doing the same with AI, but they will not go bankrupt on it, and AI will almost guaranteed be more successful than the “META” project.
What I mean is that generally more money will be made on AI, than is lost experimenting with it.