5 ms·

That’s true for AI, but it is not the right way to think about AGI. For AGI, the bet is that someone will build an AI capable enough to automate AI development

That’s true for AI, but it is not the right way to think about AGI. For AGI, the bet is that someone will build an AI capable enough to automate AI development. Once we get there it will pay for itself. The question is what the cost-speed tradeoff to get there looks like.

awakeasleep 2y ago
for 100B they would probably want a realistic description of how they get to AGI. Thats a bit too much money for the handwavy answers we have right now for the path between LLMs and AGI (which doesn't even have a great definition)
demondemidi 2y ago
Pay for itself? Who will pay for this? I don’t think you realize how much $100B is. To put it in perspective, a cutting edge fab costs almost $10B (TSMC) and only three companies can barely afford that.
- Marsymars 2y ago
  Well the total world economy is in the $100T region, so I'd expect the argument is that if you only need to replace a small fraction of that with AI to generate an ROI.
- digging 2y ago
  "Pay for itself" is probably a bit misleading. The development of transformative AGI, under the control of a single company, has the potential to render the concept of "getting your investment back" quaint and obsolete for that company. They'd never say it, and maybe some of them don't believe it, but they're effectively competing to be in control of the future of civilization. (Meanwhile, the amount of CO2 they're burning in their bid is actively reducing the chances of such a future existing...)
mark_l_watson 2y ago
I agree with you. Large tech corporations are making big bets to reach AGI first. As an example, if you are CEO of Google, do you want Microsoft or Meta to achieve AGI first. This seems less like doing business as usual and more like betting big to be part of something really transformative.
blibble 2y ago
it's not a "once", it's an "if" it may never happen, especially with this current approach at which point you've burnt hundreds of billions of dollars, emitted millions of tonnes of CO2 and all you've got out of it is a marginally better array of doubles
- namaria 2y ago
  Yeah I think there's too much faith based investment going on right now. It all smells like the argument that bitcoin would be the future of money so the price doesn't matter just buy and hold and once it takes over you would be part of the owning class.
mrtesthah 2y ago
automating “development” does not necessarily lead to AGI. An LLM could make minor efficiency improvements all day long and still not change the fundamental approach.

awakeasleep 2y ago

for 100B they would probably want a realistic description of how they get to AGI. Thats a bit too much money for the handwavy answers we have right now for the path between LLMs and AGI (which doesn't even have a great definition)

demondemidi 2y ago

Pay for itself? Who will pay for this? I don’t think you realize how much $100B is. To put it in perspective, a cutting edge fab costs almost $10B (TSMC) and only three companies can barely afford that.

Marsymars 2y ago
Well the total world economy is in the $100T region, so I'd expect the argument is that if you only need to replace a small fraction of that with AI to generate an ROI.
digging 2y ago
"Pay for itself" is probably a bit misleading. The development of transformative AGI, under the control of a single company, has the potential to render the concept of "getting your investment back" quaint and obsolete for that company. They'd never say it, and maybe some of them don't believe it, but they're effectively competing to be in control of the future of civilization. (Meanwhile, the amount of CO2 they're burning in their bid is actively reducing the chances of such a future existing...)

mark_l_watson 2y ago

I agree with you. Large tech corporations are making big bets to reach AGI first. As an example, if you are CEO of Google, do you want Microsoft or Meta to achieve AGI first. This seems less like doing business as usual and more like betting big to be part of something really transformative.

blibble 2y ago

it's not a "once", it's an "if" it may never happen, especially with this current approach at which point you've burnt hundreds of billions of dollars, emitted millions of tonnes of CO2 and all you've got out of it is a marginally better array of doubles

namaria 2y ago
Yeah I think there's too much faith based investment going on right now. It all smells like the argument that bitcoin would be the future of money so the price doesn't matter just buy and hold and once it takes over you would be part of the owning class.

mrtesthah 2y ago

automating “development” does not necessarily lead to AGI. An LLM could make minor efficiency improvements all day long and still not change the fundamental approach.