6 ms·

> Outside of tech, AI isn't making any friends. It's an unexpected threat on the horizon for the bearers of accumulated privilege, such as monopolies and nation

> Outside of tech, AI isn't making any friends. It's an unexpected threat on the horizon for the bearers of accumulated privilege, such as monopolies and nation-state autocrats How so? Generative AI has developed in a way that's very amenable to the bearers of accumulated privilege, it requires so much capital expenditure that it's in the hands of a few companies that can be variously negotiated with or strong armed. This is not at all like the computer and internet revolutions of the 90s. > The worst possible outcome is that we end up with an all-powerful AI cartel which negotiates massive deals with IP conglomerates, locking out competition and open and free alternatives. What's the difference with the status quo if the main players are Microsoft, Meta and Google?

worstspotgain 2y ago
> How so? Generative AI has developed in a way that's very amenable to the bearers of accumulated privilege, it requires so much capital expenditure that it's in the hands of a few companies that can be variously negotiated with or strong armed. This is not at all like the computer and internet revolutions of the 90s. Even at today's bloated GPU prices (which won't last,) training rigs cost about the same as the servers and data pipes that serious dot-coms needed, and much less than the fabs that serious semiconductor outfits needed in ~1980, especially when adjusted for inflation. Many AI startups don't do their own primary training at all, making their costs identical to barebones dot-coms'. > What's the difference with the status quo if the main players are Microsoft, Meta and Google? You forgot OpenAI, Anthropic, Apple and Amazon. Of the seven, two are new, three emerged from the last revolution and two from the one before. The incumbent companies in the 90s were the likes of IBM, DEC, HP, Unisys, SGI and Sun. Almost all of them smelled the coffee and invested heavily in various Internet plays. Only a few survived, most of them only barely. The previous revolution was even bloodier. Today's incumbents are also smelling the coffee and have AI plays. None of them is certain they'll still be around 10 years from now. The reason Meta opened up Llama is because they were convinced that the barriers to entry were minimal. In 2022, Altman famously claimed that if there was a Moore's Law in parameter count, it had already topped out. A large fraction of use cases can be handled with models under 10B. Training algorithms are increasing in efficiency faster than parameter counts are increasing. The only real barriers to entry are patents (and we won't know what that looks like until they break stealth) and the possibility of nefarious anticompetitive deals with the IP conglomerates that we're discussing here. Many economists expect the disruption caused by AI to be much greater than that of PCs and the Internet. The usual parallel is electrification. The gentry from back East is in the covered wagons too.

worstspotgain 2y ago

> How so? Generative AI has developed in a way that's very amenable to the bearers of accumulated privilege, it requires so much capital expenditure that it's in the hands of a few companies that can be variously negotiated with or strong armed. This is not at all like the computer and internet revolutions of the 90s. Even at today's bloated GPU prices (which won't last,) training rigs cost about the same as the servers and data pipes that serious dot-coms needed, and much less than the fabs that serious semiconductor outfits needed in ~1980, especially when adjusted for inflation. Many AI startups don't do their own primary training at all, making their costs identical to barebones dot-coms'. > What's the difference with the status quo if the main players are Microsoft, Meta and Google? You forgot OpenAI, Anthropic, Apple and Amazon. Of the seven, two are new, three emerged from the last revolution and two from the one before. The incumbent companies in the 90s were the likes of IBM, DEC, HP, Unisys, SGI and Sun. Almost all of them smelled the coffee and invested heavily in various Internet plays. Only a few survived, most of them only barely. The previous revolution was even bloodier. Today's incumbents are also smelling the coffee and have AI plays. None of them is certain they'll still be around 10 years from now. The reason Meta opened up Llama is because they were convinced that the barriers to entry were minimal. In 2022, Altman famously claimed that if there was a Moore's Law in parameter count, it had already topped out. A large fraction of use cases can be handled with models under 10B. Training algorithms are increasing in efficiency faster than parameter counts are increasing. The only real barriers to entry are patents (and we won't know what that looks like until they break stealth) and the possibility of nefarious anticompetitive deals with the IP conglomerates that we're discussing here. Many economists expect the disruption caused by AI to be much greater than that of PCs and the Internet. The usual parallel is electrification. The gentry from back East is in the covered wagons too.