>It’s not to help society, but to sell AI workers at a fraction of the price of human workers to all the world’s companies, which would cause mass unemployment.

>It’s not to help society, but to sell AI workers at a fraction of the price of human workers to all the world’s companies, which would cause mass unemployment. The cost of a model that is powerful enough to cause a dystopian level of unemployment is - as far as I can tell - considerably beyond the reaches of the private sector. The budgets of the wealthiest companies in history are being stretched to their limits, and they're able to churn out chatbot tech demos, which are admittedly fun, but aren't going to disrupt the entire workforce - or even meaningful percentages of it. The people at the top of the industry are talking about multi-tens-of-trillion dollar training runs (not to mention the US grid requiring a massive overhaul with several new nuclear powerplants). They need those runs to achieve "it can perform as well as the average line-cook at McDonalds" level general intelligence. The private sector just isn't going to throw endless $trillions at this. The most likely scenario for a generally intelligent model coming into existence, which can cause really dystopian levels of productivity replacement, is that it'll be funded by the public sector. The obvious social contract there will be that the taxpayer takes on risk in the near-term in exchange for long-term liberation from mandatory labour via UBI or a similar scheme.