3 ms·

I think the point is that it isn't really about creating something people want; it's about creating something that inevitably becomes a necessity for life and w

I think the point is that it isn't really about creating something people want; it's about creating something that inevitably becomes a necessity for life and work whether you like it or not. Twenty years ago we had the iPod, and 'tech' consisted of exciting consumer products we all wanted in our pockets and services that would enrich our lives by enabling our creativity and connecting us. Of course in business one aims to make a profit, but one could hope to do so simply by making things people wanted. Today, it doesn't feel like that. Sure — recent AI developments are hugely impressive, but what value are companies like OpenAI creating and who, other than AI geeks and researchers, is really hankering for this stuff? It feels more like an arms race towards something completely unknown. It's a collective panic that AGI (read: God) is just around the corner and whoever gets there first wins everything. There was no such insanity in previous 'tech' eras. There's always been competition and hype, but the prospect of unlocking the technology to end all technologies has never before been credible enough.

gruez 2y ago
>I think the point is that it isn't really about creating something people want; it's about creating something that inevitably becomes a necessity for life and work whether you like it or not. Sounds like something that would apply to tractors or looms as well. Do you think farmers or textile makers had a choice on whether to use those technologies or not? >Sure — recent AI developments are hugely impressive, but what value are companies like OpenAI creating and who, other than AI geeks and researchers, is really hankering for this stuff? It feels more like an arms race towards something completely unknown. It's a collective panic that AGI (read: God) is just around the corner and whoever gets there first wins everything. >There was no such insanity in previous 'tech' eras. There's always been competition and hype, but the prospect of unlocking the technology to end all technologies has never before been credible enough. So which one is it? In the first half you're implying AI doesn't create value and that nobody actually wants it, but then in the second half you're saying it could be the "technology to end all technologies", which has obvious value.
- xanderlewis 2y ago
  When I say ‘tech’, I’m not just using it as a synonym for technology — I’m talking about the last fifty years or so of consumer, largely opt-in, technology like entertainment devices and social networks. > So which one is it? In the first half you're implying AI doesn't create value and that nobody actually wants it, but then in the second half you're saying it could be the "technology to end all technologies", which has obvious value. Yeah. I thought this could be confusing. What I mean is not that such technology is likely to appear any time soon; rather that it’s thought to be likely. It would certainly create value if it came along, but it’d also be the end of the world as we know it.

gruez 2y ago

>I think the point is that it isn't really about creating something people want; it's about creating something that inevitably becomes a necessity for life and work whether you like it or not. Sounds like something that would apply to tractors or looms as well. Do you think farmers or textile makers had a choice on whether to use those technologies or not? >Sure — recent AI developments are hugely impressive, but what value are companies like OpenAI creating and who, other than AI geeks and researchers, is really hankering for this stuff? It feels more like an arms race towards something completely unknown. It's a collective panic that AGI (read: God) is just around the corner and whoever gets there first wins everything. >There was no such insanity in previous 'tech' eras. There's always been competition and hype, but the prospect of unlocking the technology to end all technologies has never before been credible enough. So which one is it? In the first half you're implying AI doesn't create value and that nobody actually wants it, but then in the second half you're saying it could be the "technology to end all technologies", which has obvious value.

xanderlewis 2y ago
When I say ‘tech’, I’m not just using it as a synonym for technology — I’m talking about the last fifty years or so of consumer, largely opt-in, technology like entertainment devices and social networks. > So which one is it? In the first half you're implying AI doesn't create value and that nobody actually wants it, but then in the second half you're saying it could be the "technology to end all technologies", which has obvious value. Yeah. I thought this could be confusing. What I mean is not that such technology is likely to appear any time soon; rather that it’s thought to be likely. It would certainly create value if it came along, but it’d also be the end of the world as we know it.