4 ms·

> With code and art generation, a single individual has never had more capability to make something by themselves. That is nice and all, but let me put it this

> With code and art generation, a single individual has never had more capability to make something by themselves. That is nice and all, but let me put it this way: if it costs you three cents in computing power to have AI write the necessary code for something or draw good art, you can't reasonably expect anyone to pay you more than three cents for it. Your economic value as a worker matches the economically productive things you can do, and that's what is going to put food on your table. If an AI can do in ten seconds for ten cents a task that would take you an hour, congratulations, your maximum wage is ten cents. If/when the AI becomes better than you at everything, your work is worthless, your ideas are worthless, so it all comes down to the physical assets you possess. And that's why it is centralizing: the most decentralized class of asset is human labour. AI has the potential to render it worthless, and whatever remains (land, natural resources) is already more centralized. There is a small number of people who may be uniquely talented to leverage AI to their benefit, but it is unclear how long that period might last.

whaleofatw2022 4y ago
Bingo. That's also why I think lots of these folks have no qualms doing this research so long as they are paid handsomely... And why other rich folks are happy to pay it.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  "Pay these 100 people 10x more than we would normally, so we can pay 10,000 people 1000x less than we do already"
jquery 4y ago
Perfectly said. The genie is out of the bottle, but we can at least share the wealth with everyone before a revolution happens.
buzzert 4y ago
> if it costs you three cents in computing power to have AI write the necessary code for something or draw good art, you can't reasonably expect anyone to pay you more than three cents for it I don't think that's true at all. Haven't you ever heard the expression, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts"?
- breuleux 4y ago
  Sometimes. But it's not magic. You still have to determine what the added value is. First, most jobs are not creative. If you have a job where you are told what to do (that is most jobs) and an AI could do it for cheaper, it is a net win for your employer to fire you and run the AI themselves. Either you do the job yourself, but less efficiently, or you delegate it to the AI, in which case you are nothing more than a middleman. In order for AI to empower you, it needs to work for you and help you accomplish a goal that you set yourself. So if you have a great idea, it could in theory help you implement it without requiring a lot of resources. Well, that's the theory. The problem is a) very few people actually have good or original ideas; b) AI will eventually have better ideas than most people; and c) most people care about their own ideas, they don't care about yours. You have a great idea about a movie. You use AI to make it and then you watch it. I have a great idea for a movie. I use AI to make it and then I watch it. Are we going to watch each other's "creation"? Sometimes, maybe. Most of the time, probably not. Ultimately, execution is worth a lot more than ideas, so if you manage to automate execution, what's left is worth peanuts. Note that we are talking about the endgame, here. While the technology matures, it may empower a lot of individuals (as well as a lot of corporations). The point is that it is an unstable equilibrium and there may come a point where some people have literally nothing of value to offer because AI is better than them at everything. And then there may come a point where that is true of every human.

whaleofatw2022 4y ago

Bingo. That's also why I think lots of these folks have no qualms doing this research so long as they are paid handsomely... And why other rich folks are happy to pay it.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
"Pay these 100 people 10x more than we would normally, so we can pay 10,000 people 1000x less than we do already"

jquery 4y ago

Perfectly said. The genie is out of the bottle, but we can at least share the wealth with everyone before a revolution happens.

buzzert 4y ago

> if it costs you three cents in computing power to have AI write the necessary code for something or draw good art, you can't reasonably expect anyone to pay you more than three cents for it I don't think that's true at all. Haven't you ever heard the expression, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts"?

breuleux 4y ago
Sometimes. But it's not magic. You still have to determine what the added value is. First, most jobs are not creative. If you have a job where you are told what to do (that is most jobs) and an AI could do it for cheaper, it is a net win for your employer to fire you and run the AI themselves. Either you do the job yourself, but less efficiently, or you delegate it to the AI, in which case you are nothing more than a middleman. In order for AI to empower you, it needs to work for you and help you accomplish a goal that you set yourself. So if you have a great idea, it could in theory help you implement it without requiring a lot of resources. Well, that's the theory. The problem is a) very few people actually have good or original ideas; b) AI will eventually have better ideas than most people; and c) most people care about their own ideas, they don't care about yours. You have a great idea about a movie. You use AI to make it and then you watch it. I have a great idea for a movie. I use AI to make it and then I watch it. Are we going to watch each other's "creation"? Sometimes, maybe. Most of the time, probably not. Ultimately, execution is worth a lot more than ideas, so if you manage to automate execution, what's left is worth peanuts. Note that we are talking about the endgame, here. While the technology matures, it may empower a lot of individuals (as well as a lot of corporations). The point is that it is an unstable equilibrium and there may come a point where some people have literally nothing of value to offer because AI is better than them at everything. And then there may come a point where that is true of every human.