11 ms·

It's also worth keeping in mind that AIs are a lot less risky to deploy for businesses than humans. You can scale them up and down at any time, they can work 2

It's also worth keeping in mind that AIs are a lot less risky to deploy for businesses than humans. You can scale them up and down at any time, they can work 24/7 (including holidays) with no overtime pay and no breaks, they need no corporate campuses, office space, HR personnel or travel budgets, you don't have to worry about key employees going on sick/maternity leave or taking time off the moment they're needed most, they won't assault a coworker, sue for discrimination or secretly turn out to be a pedophile and tarnish the reputation of your company, they won't leak internal documents to the press or rage quit because of new company policies, they won't even stop working when a pandemic stops most of the world from running.

antihipocrat 2y ago
AI brings similar risks - they can leak internal information, they can be tricked into performing prohibited tasks (with catastrophic effects if this is connected to core systems), they could be accused of actions that are discriminatory (biased training sets are very common). Sure, if a business deploys it to perform tasks that are inherently low risk e.g. no client interface, no core system connection and low error impact, then the human performing these tasks is going to be replaced.
- snozolli 2y ago
  they can be tricked into performing prohibited tasks This reminds me of the school principal who sent $100k to a scammer claiming to be Elon Musk. The kicker is that she was repeatedly told that it was a scam. https://abc7chicago.com/fake-elon-musk-jan-mcgee-principal-burns-science-and-technology-charter-school-scam/13044937/ https://abc7chicago.com/fake-elon-musk-jan-mcgee-principal-b...
  - tstrimple 2y ago
    This is one of the things which annoys me most about anti-LLM hate. Your peers aren't right all the time either. They believe incorrect things and will pursue worse solutions because they won't acknowledge a better way. How is this any different from a LLM? You have to question everything you're presented with. Sometimes that Stack Overflow answer isn't directly applicable to your exact problem but you can extrapolate from it to resolve your problem. Why is an LLM viewed any differently? Of course you can't just blindly accept it as the one true answer, but you literally cannot do that with humans either. Humans produce a ton of shit code and non-solutions and it's fine. But when an LLM does it, it's a serious problem that means the tech is useless. Much of the modern world is built on shit solutions and we still hobble along.
    - lazide 2y ago
      Everyone knows humans can be idiots. The problem is that people seem to think LLMs can’t be idiots, and because they aren’t human there is no way to punish them. And then people give them too much credit/power, for their own purposes. Which makes LLMs far more dangerous than idiot humans in most cases.
      - brookst 2y ago
        No. Nobody thinks LLMs are perfect. That’s a strawman. And… I am really not sure punishment is the answer to fallibility, outside of almost kinky Catholicism. The reality is these things are very good, but imperfect, much like people.
        lazide 2y ago
        Clearly you haven’t been listening to any CEO press releases lately? And when was the last time a support chatbot let you actually complain or bypass to a human?
        thecupisblue 2y ago
        Sorry man, but I literally know of startups invested into by YC where CEO's for 80% of their management decisions/vision/comms use ChatGPT ... or should I say some use Claude now, as they think it's smarter and does not make mistakes. Let that sink in.
        onion2k 2y ago
        I wouldn't be surprised if GPT genuinely makes better decisions than an inexperienced, first-time CEO who has only been a dev before, especially if the person prompting it has actually put some effort into understanding their own weaknesses. It certainly wouldn't be any worse than someone who's only experience is reading a few management books.
        lazide 2y ago
lucubratory 2y ago
>secretly turn out to be a pedophile and tarnish the reputation of your company This is interesting because it's both Oddly Specific and also something I have seen happen and I still feel really sorry for the company involved. Now that I think about it, I've actually seen it happen twice.
rockskon 2y ago
AI has a different risk profile than humans. They are a lot more risky for business operations where failure is wholly unacceptable under any circumstance. They're risky in that they fail in ways that aren't readily deterministic. And would you trust your life to a self-driving car in New York City traffic?
- lxgr 2y ago
  Isn't everybody in NYC already? (The dangers of bad driving are much higher for pedestrians than for people in cars; there are more of the former than of the latter in NYC; I'd expect there to be a non-zero number of fully self driving cars already in the city.)
  - rockskon 2y ago
    That doesn't answer my question.
    - 9dev 2y ago
      It does, in a way; AI is already there, all around you, whether you like it or not. Technological progress is Pandora’s box; you can’t take it back or slow it down. Businesses will use AI for critical workflows, and all good that they bring, and all bad too, will happen.
      - rockskon 2y ago
        How about you answer my question since he did not. Would you trust your life to a self-driving car in New York City traffic?
        lxgr 2y ago
        GP got it exactly right: I already am. There's no way for me to opt out of having self-driving cars on the streets I regularly cross as a pedestrian.
danielovichdk 2y ago
Name one technology that has come with computers that hasn't resulted in more humans being put to work ? The rhetoric of not needing people doing work is cartoon'ish. I mean there is no sane explanation of how and why that would happen, without employing more people yet again, taking care of the advancements. It's nok like technology has brought less work related stress. But it has definitely increased it. Humans were not made for using technology at such a pace as it's being rolled out. The world is fucked. Totally fucked.
- mortehu 2y ago
  Self check-out stations, ATMs, and online brokerages. Recently chat support. Namely cases where millions of people used to interact with a representative every week, and now they don't.
  - palmfacehn 2y ago
    "Name one use of electric lighting that hasn't resulted in candle makers losing work?" The framing of the question misses the point. With electric lighting we can now work longer into the night. Yes, less people use and make candles. However, the second order effects allow us to be more productive in areas we may not have previously considered. New technologies open up new opportunities for productivity. The bank tellers displaced by ATM machines can create value elsewhere. Consumers save time by not waiting in a queue, allowing them to use their time more economically. Banks have lower overhead, allowing more customers to afford their services.
    - mortehu 2y ago
      If I had missed the point I would have given a much broader list of examples. I specifically listed ones that make employees totally redundant rather than more useful doing other tasks. When these people were made redundant, they may very well have gone on to make less money in another job (i.e. being less useful in an economic sense).
- 0points 2y ago
  Where to even start? Digital banks Cashless money transfer services Self service Modern farms Robo lawn mowers NVR:s with object detection I can go on forever
TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
It's all fun and games until the infra crashes and you can't work out why, because a machine has written all of the code, no one understands how it works or what it's doing. Or - worse - there is no accessible code anywhere, and you have to prompt your way out of "I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that," while nothing works. And a human-free economy does... what? For whom? When 99% of the population is unemployed, what are the 1% doing while the planet's ecosystems collapse around them?
- sirsinsalot 2y ago
  It honestly borders on psychopathic the way engineers are treating humans in this context. People talking like this also, in the back of their minds like to think they'll be OK. They're smart enough to be still needed. They're a human, but they'll be OK even while working to make genAI out perform them at their own work. I wonder how they'll feel about their own hubris when they struggle to feed their family. The US can barely make healthcare work without disgusting consequences for the sick. I wonder what mass unemployment looks like.
  - a2800276 2y ago
    But when Sam Altman owns all the money in the world surely he'll distribute some it via his not-for-profit AI company?
  - bnj 2y ago
    For the moment the displacement is asymmetrical; AI replacing employees, but not AI replacing consumers. If AI causes mass unemployment, the pool of consumers (profit to companies) will shrink. I wonder what the ripple effects of that will be.
    - sirsinsalot 2y ago
      There's no point being rich in a world where the economy is unhealthy.
  - jvanderbot 2y ago
bboygravity 2y ago
humans definitely don't need office space, but your point stands
- AustinW 2y ago
  LLM office space is pretty expensive. Chillers, backup generators, raised floors, communications gear, …. They even demand multiple offices for redundancy, not to mention the new ask of a nuclear power plant to keep the lights on.
fsndz 2y ago
I get the excitement, but folks, this is a model that excels only in things like software engineering/math. They basically used reinforcement learning to train the model to better remember which pattern to use to solve specific problems. This in no way generalises to open ended tasks in a way that makes human in the loop unnecessary. This basically makes assistants better (as soon as they figure out how to make it cheaper), but I wouldn't blindly trust the output of o3. Sam Altman is still wrong: https://www.lycee.ai/blog/why-sam-altman-is-wrong https://www.lycee.ai/blog/why-sam-altman-is-wrong
- girvo 2y ago
  Quite. And if it was right, those businesses deploying it and replacing humans need humans with jobs and money to pay for their products and services…
  - fakedang 2y ago
    It will just keep bleeding the middle class on and on, till the point where either everyone is rich, homeless or a plumber or other such licensed worker. And then there will be such a glut in the latter (shrinking) market, that everyone in that group also becomes either rich or homeless.
    - palmfacehn 2y ago
      Productivity gains increase the standard of living for everyone. Products and services become cheaper. Leisure time increases. Scarce labor resources can be applied in other areas. I fail to see the difference between AI-employment-doom and other flavors of Luddism.
      - bayindirh 2y ago
        It also fuels the income inequality with a fatter pipe in every iteration. You get richer as you move up in the supply chain, period. Companies vertically integrate to drive costs down in the long run. As AI gets more prevalent, it'll drive the cost down for the companies supplying these services, so the former employees of said companies will be paid lower, or not at all. So, tell me, how paying fewer people less money will drive their standard of living upwards? I can understand the leisure time. Because, when you don't have a job, all day is leisure time. But you'll need money for that, so will these companies fund the masses via government to provide Universal Basic Income, so these people can both live a borderline miserable life while funding these companies to suck these people more and more?
jvanderbot 2y ago
Generally, I agree with you. But, there are risks other than "But a human might have a baby any time now - what then??". For AI example(s): Attribution is low, a system built without human intervention may suddenly fall outside its own expertise and hallucinate itself into a corner, everyone may just throw more compute at a system until it grows without bound, etc etc. This "You can scale up to infinity" problem might become "You have to scale up to infinity" to build any reasonably sized system with AI. The shovel-sellers get fantastically rich but the businesses are effectively left holding the risk from a fast-moving, unintuitive, uninspected, partially verified codebase. I just don't see how anyone not building a CRUD app/frontend could be comfortable with that, but then again my Tesla is effectively running such a system to drive me and my kids. Albeit, that's on a well-defined problem and within literally human-made guardrails.
zitterbewegung 2y ago
Having AI "tarnish the reputation of your company" encompasses so much in regard to AI when it can receive input and be manipulated by others such as Tai from Microsoft and many other outcomes where there is a true risk for AI deployment.
- fakedang 2y ago
  We can all agree we've progressed so much since Tai.
monkeynotes 2y ago
"AIs are a lot less risky to deploy for businesses than humans" How do you know? LLMs can't even be properly scrutinized, while humans at least follow common psychology and patterns we've understood for thousands of years. This actually makes humans more predictable and manageable than you might think. The wild part is that LLMs understand us way better than we understand them. The jump from GPT-3 to GPT-4 even surprised the engineers who built it. That should raise some red flags about how "predictable" these systems really are. Think about it - we can't actually verify what these models are capable of or if they're being truthful, while they have this massive knowledge base about human behavior and psychology. That's a pretty concerning power imbalance. What looks like lower risk on the surface might be hiding much deeper uncertainties that we can't even detect, let alone control.
- ETH_start 2y ago
  We are not pitted against AI is these match-ups. Instead, all humans and AI aligned with the goal of improving the human condition, are pitted against rogue AI which are not. Our capability to keep rogue AI in check therefore grows in proportion to the capabilities of AI.
  - daveguy 2y ago
    The GP post is about how much better these AIs will be than humans once they reach a given skill level. So, yes, we are very much pitted against AI unless there are major socioeconomic changes. I don't think we are as close to a AGI as a lot of people are hyping, but at some point it would be a direct challenge to human employment. And we should think about it before that happens.
    - ETH_start 2y ago
      My point is, it's not us alone. We will have aligned AI helping us. As for employment, automation makes people more productive. It doesn't reduce the number of earning opportunities that exist. Quite the opposite, actually. As the amount of production increases relative to the human population, per capita GDP and income increase as well.
cmiles74 2y ago
"...they need no corporate campuses, office space..." This is a big downside of AI, IMHO. Those offices need to be filled! ;-)
osigurdson 2y ago
Sure, once AI can actually do a job of some sort, without assistance, that job is gone - even if the machine costs significantly more. However, it can't remotely do that now so can only help a bit.
Mistletoe 2y ago
At what point in the curve of AI is it not ethical to work an AI 24/7 because it is alive? What if it is exactly the same point where you reach human level performance?
tintor 2y ago
“they won’t leak” That one isn’t guaranteed. Many examples online of exfiltration attacks on LLMs.
rowanG077 2y ago
AI do require overtime pay. In fact they are literally pay for use. If you use an AI 8 hours vs 16 hours a day is literally the difference between 2x cost.
ksec 2y ago
Even accepting for additional cost with human. With the current model we are still roughly 10^3 in terms cost. Less risky to deploy question will probably come once it is closer to 10x the cost. Considering the model was even specifically tuned for the test and doesn't involve other complexity I will say we are actually 10^4 cost off in terms of real world scenario. I would imagine with better algorithm, tuning and data we could knock off 10^2 from the equation. That would still leave us with 10^2 cost to improve from Hardware. Minimum of 10 years.

antihipocrat 2y ago

AI brings similar risks - they can leak internal information, they can be tricked into performing prohibited tasks (with catastrophic effects if this is connected to core systems), they could be accused of actions that are discriminatory (biased training sets are very common). Sure, if a business deploys it to perform tasks that are inherently low risk e.g. no client interface, no core system connection and low error impact, then the human performing these tasks is going to be replaced.

snozolli 2y ago
they can be tricked into performing prohibited tasks This reminds me of the school principal who sent $100k to a scammer claiming to be Elon Musk. The kicker is that she was repeatedly told that it was a scam. https://abc7chicago.com/fake-elon-musk-jan-mcgee-principal-burns-science-and-technology-charter-school-scam/13044937/ https://abc7chicago.com/fake-elon-musk-jan-mcgee-principal-b...
- tstrimple 2y ago
  This is one of the things which annoys me most about anti-LLM hate. Your peers aren't right all the time either. They believe incorrect things and will pursue worse solutions because they won't acknowledge a better way. How is this any different from a LLM? You have to question everything you're presented with. Sometimes that Stack Overflow answer isn't directly applicable to your exact problem but you can extrapolate from it to resolve your problem. Why is an LLM viewed any differently? Of course you can't just blindly accept it as the one true answer, but you literally cannot do that with humans either. Humans produce a ton of shit code and non-solutions and it's fine. But when an LLM does it, it's a serious problem that means the tech is useless. Much of the modern world is built on shit solutions and we still hobble along.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Everyone knows humans can be idiots. The problem is that people seem to think LLMs can’t be idiots, and because they aren’t human there is no way to punish them. And then people give them too much credit/power, for their own purposes. Which makes LLMs far more dangerous than idiot humans in most cases.
    - brookst 2y ago
      No. Nobody thinks LLMs are perfect. That’s a strawman. And… I am really not sure punishment is the answer to fallibility, outside of almost kinky Catholicism. The reality is these things are very good, but imperfect, much like people.
      - lazide 2y ago
        Clearly you haven’t been listening to any CEO press releases lately? And when was the last time a support chatbot let you actually complain or bypass to a human?
      - thecupisblue 2y ago
        Sorry man, but I literally know of startups invested into by YC where CEO's for 80% of their management decisions/vision/comms use ChatGPT ... or should I say some use Claude now, as they think it's smarter and does not make mistakes. Let that sink in.
        onion2k 2y ago
        I wouldn't be surprised if GPT genuinely makes better decisions than an inexperienced, first-time CEO who has only been a dev before, especially if the person prompting it has actually put some effort into understanding their own weaknesses. It certainly wouldn't be any worse than someone who's only experience is reading a few management books.
        lazide 2y ago

lucubratory 2y ago

>secretly turn out to be a pedophile and tarnish the reputation of your company This is interesting because it's both Oddly Specific and also something I have seen happen and I still feel really sorry for the company involved. Now that I think about it, I've actually seen it happen twice.

rockskon 2y ago

AI has a different risk profile than humans. They are a lot more risky for business operations where failure is wholly unacceptable under any circumstance. They're risky in that they fail in ways that aren't readily deterministic. And would you trust your life to a self-driving car in New York City traffic?

lxgr 2y ago
Isn't everybody in NYC already? (The dangers of bad driving are much higher for pedestrians than for people in cars; there are more of the former than of the latter in NYC; I'd expect there to be a non-zero number of fully self driving cars already in the city.)
- rockskon 2y ago
  That doesn't answer my question.
  - 9dev 2y ago
    It does, in a way; AI is already there, all around you, whether you like it or not. Technological progress is Pandora’s box; you can’t take it back or slow it down. Businesses will use AI for critical workflows, and all good that they bring, and all bad too, will happen.
    - rockskon 2y ago
      How about you answer my question since he did not. Would you trust your life to a self-driving car in New York City traffic?
      - lxgr 2y ago
        GP got it exactly right: I already am. There's no way for me to opt out of having self-driving cars on the streets I regularly cross as a pedestrian.

danielovichdk 2y ago

Name one technology that has come with computers that hasn't resulted in more humans being put to work ? The rhetoric of not needing people doing work is cartoon'ish. I mean there is no sane explanation of how and why that would happen, without employing more people yet again, taking care of the advancements. It's nok like technology has brought less work related stress. But it has definitely increased it. Humans were not made for using technology at such a pace as it's being rolled out. The world is fucked. Totally fucked.

mortehu 2y ago
Self check-out stations, ATMs, and online brokerages. Recently chat support. Namely cases where millions of people used to interact with a representative every week, and now they don't.
- palmfacehn 2y ago
  "Name one use of electric lighting that hasn't resulted in candle makers losing work?" The framing of the question misses the point. With electric lighting we can now work longer into the night. Yes, less people use and make candles. However, the second order effects allow us to be more productive in areas we may not have previously considered. New technologies open up new opportunities for productivity. The bank tellers displaced by ATM machines can create value elsewhere. Consumers save time by not waiting in a queue, allowing them to use their time more economically. Banks have lower overhead, allowing more customers to afford their services.
  - mortehu 2y ago
    If I had missed the point I would have given a much broader list of examples. I specifically listed ones that make employees totally redundant rather than more useful doing other tasks. When these people were made redundant, they may very well have gone on to make less money in another job (i.e. being less useful in an economic sense).
0points 2y ago
Where to even start? Digital banks Cashless money transfer services Self service Modern farms Robo lawn mowers NVR:s with object detection I can go on forever

TheOtherHobbes 2y ago

It's all fun and games until the infra crashes and you can't work out why, because a machine has written all of the code, no one understands how it works or what it's doing. Or - worse - there is no accessible code anywhere, and you have to prompt your way out of "I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that," while nothing works. And a human-free economy does... what? For whom? When 99% of the population is unemployed, what are the 1% doing while the planet's ecosystems collapse around them?

sirsinsalot 2y ago
It honestly borders on psychopathic the way engineers are treating humans in this context. People talking like this also, in the back of their minds like to think they'll be OK. They're smart enough to be still needed. They're a human, but they'll be OK even while working to make genAI out perform them at their own work. I wonder how they'll feel about their own hubris when they struggle to feed their family. The US can barely make healthcare work without disgusting consequences for the sick. I wonder what mass unemployment looks like.
- a2800276 2y ago
  But when Sam Altman owns all the money in the world surely he'll distribute some it via his not-for-profit AI company?
- bnj 2y ago
  For the moment the displacement is asymmetrical; AI replacing employees, but not AI replacing consumers. If AI causes mass unemployment, the pool of consumers (profit to companies) will shrink. I wonder what the ripple effects of that will be.
  - sirsinsalot 2y ago
    There's no point being rich in a world where the economy is unhealthy.
- jvanderbot 2y ago

bboygravity 2y ago

humans definitely don't need office space, but your point stands

AustinW 2y ago
LLM office space is pretty expensive. Chillers, backup generators, raised floors, communications gear, …. They even demand multiple offices for redundancy, not to mention the new ask of a nuclear power plant to keep the lights on.

fsndz 2y ago

I get the excitement, but folks, this is a model that excels only in things like software engineering/math. They basically used reinforcement learning to train the model to better remember which pattern to use to solve specific problems. This in no way generalises to open ended tasks in a way that makes human in the loop unnecessary. This basically makes assistants better (as soon as they figure out how to make it cheaper), but I wouldn't blindly trust the output of o3. Sam Altman is still wrong: https://www.lycee.ai/blog/why-sam-altman-is-wrong https://www.lycee.ai/blog/why-sam-altman-is-wrong

girvo 2y ago
Quite. And if it was right, those businesses deploying it and replacing humans need humans with jobs and money to pay for their products and services…
- fakedang 2y ago
  It will just keep bleeding the middle class on and on, till the point where either everyone is rich, homeless or a plumber or other such licensed worker. And then there will be such a glut in the latter (shrinking) market, that everyone in that group also becomes either rich or homeless.
  - palmfacehn 2y ago
    Productivity gains increase the standard of living for everyone. Products and services become cheaper. Leisure time increases. Scarce labor resources can be applied in other areas. I fail to see the difference between AI-employment-doom and other flavors of Luddism.
    - bayindirh 2y ago
      It also fuels the income inequality with a fatter pipe in every iteration. You get richer as you move up in the supply chain, period. Companies vertically integrate to drive costs down in the long run. As AI gets more prevalent, it'll drive the cost down for the companies supplying these services, so the former employees of said companies will be paid lower, or not at all. So, tell me, how paying fewer people less money will drive their standard of living upwards? I can understand the leisure time. Because, when you don't have a job, all day is leisure time. But you'll need money for that, so will these companies fund the masses via government to provide Universal Basic Income, so these people can both live a borderline miserable life while funding these companies to suck these people more and more?

jvanderbot 2y ago

Generally, I agree with you. But, there are risks other than "But a human might have a baby any time now - what then??". For AI example(s): Attribution is low, a system built without human intervention may suddenly fall outside its own expertise and hallucinate itself into a corner, everyone may just throw more compute at a system until it grows without bound, etc etc. This "You can scale up to infinity" problem might become "You have to scale up to infinity" to build any reasonably sized system with AI. The shovel-sellers get fantastically rich but the businesses are effectively left holding the risk from a fast-moving, unintuitive, uninspected, partially verified codebase. I just don't see how anyone not building a CRUD app/frontend could be comfortable with that, but then again my Tesla is effectively running such a system to drive me and my kids. Albeit, that's on a well-defined problem and within literally human-made guardrails.

zitterbewegung 2y ago

Having AI "tarnish the reputation of your company" encompasses so much in regard to AI when it can receive input and be manipulated by others such as Tai from Microsoft and many other outcomes where there is a true risk for AI deployment.

fakedang 2y ago
We can all agree we've progressed so much since Tai.

monkeynotes 2y ago

"AIs are a lot less risky to deploy for businesses than humans" How do you know? LLMs can't even be properly scrutinized, while humans at least follow common psychology and patterns we've understood for thousands of years. This actually makes humans more predictable and manageable than you might think. The wild part is that LLMs understand us way better than we understand them. The jump from GPT-3 to GPT-4 even surprised the engineers who built it. That should raise some red flags about how "predictable" these systems really are. Think about it - we can't actually verify what these models are capable of or if they're being truthful, while they have this massive knowledge base about human behavior and psychology. That's a pretty concerning power imbalance. What looks like lower risk on the surface might be hiding much deeper uncertainties that we can't even detect, let alone control.

ETH_start 2y ago
We are not pitted against AI is these match-ups. Instead, all humans and AI aligned with the goal of improving the human condition, are pitted against rogue AI which are not. Our capability to keep rogue AI in check therefore grows in proportion to the capabilities of AI.
- daveguy 2y ago
  The GP post is about how much better these AIs will be than humans once they reach a given skill level. So, yes, we are very much pitted against AI unless there are major socioeconomic changes. I don't think we are as close to a AGI as a lot of people are hyping, but at some point it would be a direct challenge to human employment. And we should think about it before that happens.
  - ETH_start 2y ago
    My point is, it's not us alone. We will have aligned AI helping us. As for employment, automation makes people more productive. It doesn't reduce the number of earning opportunities that exist. Quite the opposite, actually. As the amount of production increases relative to the human population, per capita GDP and income increase as well.

cmiles74 2y ago

"...they need no corporate campuses, office space..." This is a big downside of AI, IMHO. Those offices need to be filled! ;-)

osigurdson 2y ago

Sure, once AI can actually do a job of some sort, without assistance, that job is gone - even if the machine costs significantly more. However, it can't remotely do that now so can only help a bit.

Mistletoe 2y ago

At what point in the curve of AI is it not ethical to work an AI 24/7 because it is alive? What if it is exactly the same point where you reach human level performance?

tintor 2y ago

“they won’t leak” That one isn’t guaranteed. Many examples online of exfiltration attacks on LLMs.

rowanG077 2y ago

AI do require overtime pay. In fact they are literally pay for use. If you use an AI 8 hours vs 16 hours a day is literally the difference between 2x cost.

ksec 2y ago

Even accepting for additional cost with human. With the current model we are still roughly 10^3 in terms cost. Less risky to deploy question will probably come once it is closer to 10x the cost. Considering the model was even specifically tuned for the test and doesn't involve other complexity I will say we are actually 10^4 cost off in terms of real world scenario. I would imagine with better algorithm, tuning and data we could knock off 10^2 from the equation. That would still leave us with 10^2 cost to improve from Hardware. Minimum of 10 years.