NFTs couldn't pass the Turing test, something I didn't expect to witness in my lifetime.
The two are qualitatively different.
Worth pointing out; the Turing test is pretty much just a thought experiment. Turing never considered it a test of "intelligence", or any other human quality. Many people have criticized its use as a measure of such.
Yep - the "value" of a Turing-capable system has been questioned for a while now. We watched Markov chains and IRC bots clear the Turing test on a regular basis in the mid-2000s, and all we got out of that was better automated scamming.
Even now, as we have fully capable conversational models we don't really have any great immediate applications. Our efforts at making them "think" is yielding marginal returns.
I'm not so sure it passes the turing test since you can trivially determine that the conversation partner is a machine by asking it a trick question or offering it a "jailbreak" style prompt.
You're missing the point. The hype is the same, because the incentives are the same.
I agree with you that there is significantly more there there with AI, but I agree with the parent that the hype cycles are essentially indistinguishable.
I agree, AI is fucking spectacular and NFTs have no substance. But at the same time, neither AI nor NFTs have substantially affected my life so far, so I experience a very weird cognitive dissonance when the AI hype crowd gasps on twitter. This is exactly the same feeling I had when I felt like I was the only one in my twitter bubble who didn't think NFTs were the shizzle.
I mean, AI the tech can be spectacular and the hype can be overblown, right? I'm not even sure that the hype is overblown, but it sure feels like the kind of hype that we'll say, a few years from now, was overblown.