7 ms·

I agree, but more I think they see a slew of open source competitors on the horizon and will be leaning into regulation to maintain a moat.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
GypsyKing716 4y ago
I guess I've been re-injected into the Matrix and now I'm wondering why this chicken sandwich I'm eating tastes weird.
- mindcrime 4y ago
  Tastes a bit like Tasty-Wheat? Or maybe tuna-fish?
ChatGTP 4y ago
Open source models are on the way no doubt. Personally I think that’s the only way to avoid the “everyone being homeless and jobless” scenario we’ve all been describing.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  How will that let people avoid the homeless/jobless scenarios?
  - ChatGTP 4y ago
    No single point of control over the means of production. If Microsoft have cheap labor from bots, and you do too, it levels the playing field dramatically. You won’t have to pay money for access to similar capabilities The Luddite’s were angry because they were replaced by machines they couldn’t afford to own themselves and profit from. With open source machines, this doesn’t happen. We all have machines and then we all have more equal opportunity.
    - dustymcp 4y ago
      It still cost money to operate the machines..
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      I'm honestly not understanding this. If someone's job is eliminated because they were replaced by a bot, how does having their own bot help them? They're still out of work. Or are you suggesting that everyone in the future will have to become AI engineers?
      - ChatGTP 4y ago
        Because the bot would have to be producing something of value. So if now will have access to something that can also produce value without having to pay a gatekeeper? You don’t think that’s important ?
        JohnFen 4y ago
        I do think it's important, I'm just not seeing how that helps people who have lost their jobs/home. I'm not being argumentative here. I'm not understanding, and want to understand how this would be applied to help people in that position. The only way I can think is if the solution is that they will all be AI operators, in which case the solution on offer is another variant of "retraining" -- but not everyone will be suitable for that sort of work. But that doesn't sound right, so I think I'm not understanding.
    - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
      But we still won't be able to afford the processing power. It's ultimately the same as crypto - it promises to democratize (finance/copyright infringement/talking to a computer) but doesn't if you peel away the layers. The means of production is both the software AND the hardware.
      - ChatGTP 4y ago
        If the models don’t become more efficient to run , then it won’t be sustainable for almost any company to scale Them up to me smarter, and have them so heavily used no one has jobs. So we have to assume you’ll be able to run them on much more efficient hardware soon. Anyway, I’m not necessarily talking about individuals running their own, but groups of people.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

GypsyKing716 4y ago

I guess I've been re-injected into the Matrix and now I'm wondering why this chicken sandwich I'm eating tastes weird.

mindcrime 4y ago
Tastes a bit like Tasty-Wheat? Or maybe tuna-fish?

ChatGTP 4y ago

Open source models are on the way no doubt. Personally I think that’s the only way to avoid the “everyone being homeless and jobless” scenario we’ve all been describing.

JohnFen 4y ago
How will that let people avoid the homeless/jobless scenarios?
- ChatGTP 4y ago
  No single point of control over the means of production. If Microsoft have cheap labor from bots, and you do too, it levels the playing field dramatically. You won’t have to pay money for access to similar capabilities The Luddite’s were angry because they were replaced by machines they couldn’t afford to own themselves and profit from. With open source machines, this doesn’t happen. We all have machines and then we all have more equal opportunity.
  - dustymcp 4y ago
    It still cost money to operate the machines..
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    I'm honestly not understanding this. If someone's job is eliminated because they were replaced by a bot, how does having their own bot help them? They're still out of work. Or are you suggesting that everyone in the future will have to become AI engineers?
    - ChatGTP 4y ago
      Because the bot would have to be producing something of value. So if now will have access to something that can also produce value without having to pay a gatekeeper? You don’t think that’s important ?
      - JohnFen 4y ago
        I do think it's important, I'm just not seeing how that helps people who have lost their jobs/home. I'm not being argumentative here. I'm not understanding, and want to understand how this would be applied to help people in that position. The only way I can think is if the solution is that they will all be AI operators, in which case the solution on offer is another variant of "retraining" -- but not everyone will be suitable for that sort of work. But that doesn't sound right, so I think I'm not understanding.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    But we still won't be able to afford the processing power. It's ultimately the same as crypto - it promises to democratize (finance/copyright infringement/talking to a computer) but doesn't if you peel away the layers. The means of production is both the software AND the hardware.
    - ChatGTP 4y ago
      If the models don’t become more efficient to run , then it won’t be sustainable for almost any company to scale Them up to me smarter, and have them so heavily used no one has jobs. So we have to assume you’ll be able to run them on much more efficient hardware soon. Anyway, I’m not necessarily talking about individuals running their own, but groups of people.