There are studies that suggest that the information investment firms publish is not based on what they believe to be true, but on what they want others, including their competitors, believe to be true. And in many cases for serving their investment strategy, it benefits them to publish the opposite of what they believe to be true.
Intentions aside, it’s just some independent research that anyone can review and critique. If the research is bad then it should be pointed out and won’t be taken seriously, undermining any influence from Goldman Sachs now and in the future
Goldman Sachs would not publish it that prominantly if it didn’t help their internal goals. And their intention is certainly not to help the public or their competitors. There are independent studies of some topics that are all well made and get to opposite conclusions. Invedtment firms just do what serves them. I wouldn’t trust anything that they publish.
I mean, ask pretty much anyone familiar with the workings of AI who doesn’t have a vested interest, and they’ll say the same thing. Goldman is right.
I’d also say that it does have applications, but it’s going to take a moment for all the bullshit artists to move on to the next thing so the grown-ups can work. It’s a bit like graphene research circa-2011, although it’s way more proven than graphene ever was.
They might also say that the moment it does work reliably we should be scared, although it’s fair to say there’s many experts who take the obvious stance.
If Goldman Sachs said that, then most likely the opposite is true.
I’m surprised how everyone here believes what that capitalist company is saying, just because it fits their own narrative of AI being useless.
What makes you say that?
There are studies that suggest that the information investment firms publish is not based on what they believe to be true, but on what they want others, including their competitors, believe to be true. And in many cases for serving their investment strategy, it benefits them to publish the opposite of what they believe to be true.
Intentions aside, it’s just some independent research that anyone can review and critique. If the research is bad then it should be pointed out and won’t be taken seriously, undermining any influence from Goldman Sachs now and in the future
Goldman Sachs would not publish it that prominantly if it didn’t help their internal goals. And their intention is certainly not to help the public or their competitors. There are independent studies of some topics that are all well made and get to opposite conclusions. Invedtment firms just do what serves them. I wouldn’t trust anything that they publish.
I mean, ask pretty much anyone familiar with the workings of AI who doesn’t have a vested interest, and they’ll say the same thing. Goldman is right.
I’d also say that it does have applications, but it’s going to take a moment for all the bullshit artists to move on to the next thing so the grown-ups can work. It’s a bit like graphene research circa-2011, although it’s way more proven than graphene ever was.
They might also say that the moment it does work reliably we should be scared, although it’s fair to say there’s many experts who take the obvious stance.