4 ms·
> If it increases the GDP by 5%, but the result is a massive redistribution of wealth to the infrastructure holders at the expense of millions of people losing
by rhuru 3y ago
> If it increases the GDP by 5%, but the result is a massive redistribution of wealth to the infrastructure holders at the expense of millions of people losing their livelyhood is that worth it?
Yes. It would be totally worth it. I am fine if my job gets 100% replaced by an LLM.
I do not know if your opinions are a good representation of what the critics have been saying but if it is a good sample then I would say such critics have very poor grasp of basic economics or how the world works.
If the infrastructure holders get very rich very fast it is not a bad thing, just invest in their stocks and you can get very rich too. It is that simple.
But what you need to ask is what exactly people do when they get very rich ? They just invest it into other ventures that can make them very rich. LLMs were result of few people having lot of money to spend. GPT4 is supposedly cost $100M to train. It is $100M capital that created it. Imagine what $100B can create if people have that much money.
If AI destroys entire sectors of jobs that would be a noble goal. It means human beings wont have to waste their time on problems that are worthless like how we look at folks who moved from toilet to toilet collecting human waste to dispose it off.
- deanCommie 3y ago> If the infrastructure holders get very rich very fast it is not a bad thing, just invest in their stocks and you can get very rich too. It is that simple. I don't think you can get to criticize anyone for having a poor grasp of basic economics. Otherwise it just sounds like you're saying that there shouldn't be a need for anyone to anyone to be poor - they simply need to invest in the stock market. > Imagine what $100B can create if people have that much money. I don't need to imagine. I see what Elon Musk did with $44B, which is now worth ~$15B. > If AI destroys entire sectors of jobs that would be a noble goal. It means human beings wont have to waste their time on problems that are worthless like how we look at folks who moved from toilet to toilet collecting human waste to dispose it off. I broadly agree with that, except you skipped my entire point where I'm clarifying that I'm not concerned about the menial jobs, but rather the ones that are about to (already started actually) be replaced by INFERIOR versions of product quality. Modern AI/LLM/Generative AI tools are not replacing toilet collectors. They're replacing journalists, writers, artists, and musicians. We're not replacing burdensome labour work, we're replacing the most uniquely human tasks of creativity.
- rhuru 3y agoI would also like to point out that his change is "inevitable". If US tries to regulate it, the AI companies will move to China, Russia, North Korea or Saudi. Imagine a nation like North Korea with no real human capital suddenly producing AI generated content, code and software that Americans end up buying using VPN.