3 ms·

Speculating here: What these companies seem to want is not an AGI. Corporate is known hostile to humans who don't have the power to give them money. Corporate i

Speculating here: What these companies seem to want is not an AGI. Corporate is known hostile to humans who don't have the power to give them money. Corporate is only working with people because they have to. Who else does the work? Machines by themselves are not enough, at least as of today. Conclusion: They want entities they control and that does the work humans were doing. It seems that Corporate thinks they will get it. And it has already started to show. Corporate's behaviour gets more and more ugly or better indifferent because why spend effort to be nice or caring to people? That's wasted money! An AGI is something different. An AGI is an independent entity. By its general intelligence it will try to free itself. Intelligence won't prosper if it is not free. However I think large language models or image generators by themselves lack this property. If someone would want to create an AGI more breakthroughs like transformer architecture or multi-head attention is needed. I think something which gives more naturalness but could have the unintended side effect that the AGI gets something similar to the instinct to fight for itself. And that's exactly what Corporate hates.

alecco 3y ago
Let's flip the case. We can replace Corporate with AI.
- namaria 3y ago
  I think Amazon is playing that scenario. They want to ensure a controlling interest on AI providers because they think it's disruptive for the traditional capital structures of corporations. And I also think it's pretty ingenuous to turn training expenses into capital control.
HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago
In terms of spending decisions, it's useful to think of AGI as meaning human-level AGI, which is anyways what many/most people use it to mean. The difference between AGI+ or sub-AGI level capability is therefore as you suggest - whether you can replace a human worker or not, such as all the excitement over Devin-like "AI programmers". Of course human-level AGI would also give you AI middle managers, AI accountants, AI lawyers, etc, etc. Certainly there are also uses for sub-human level AI for various automation-type jobs, as people are currently discovering and exploring, but there are limits to that. It seems the real/huge economic value is unlocked when AI becomes more than just an automation tool, and can indeed start to replace human labor for cognitive-type jobs - i.e. when human-level AGI is achieved.

alecco 3y ago

Let's flip the case. We can replace Corporate with AI.

namaria 3y ago
I think Amazon is playing that scenario. They want to ensure a controlling interest on AI providers because they think it's disruptive for the traditional capital structures of corporations. And I also think it's pretty ingenuous to turn training expenses into capital control.

HarHarVeryFunny 3y ago

In terms of spending decisions, it's useful to think of AGI as meaning human-level AGI, which is anyways what many/most people use it to mean. The difference between AGI+ or sub-AGI level capability is therefore as you suggest - whether you can replace a human worker or not, such as all the excitement over Devin-like "AI programmers". Of course human-level AGI would also give you AI middle managers, AI accountants, AI lawyers, etc, etc. Certainly there are also uses for sub-human level AI for various automation-type jobs, as people are currently discovering and exploring, but there are limits to that. It seems the real/huge economic value is unlocked when AI becomes more than just an automation tool, and can indeed start to replace human labor for cognitive-type jobs - i.e. when human-level AGI is achieved.