This paper's got it backwards. AI's benefits don't pile up with the owners, they flow to whoever's got a problem to solve and knows how to point the AI at it. T

This paper's got it backwards. AI's benefits don't pile up with the owners, they flow to whoever's got a problem to solve and knows how to point the AI at it. Think of AI like a library: owning the books doesn't make you benefit much, applying knowledge to problems does. The big winners are the ones setting the prompts, not the ones owning the servers. AI developers? They're making cents per million tokens while users, solo or corporate, cash in on the real value: application. Sure, the rich might hire some more people to aim the AI for them, but who's got a monopoly on problems? Nobody. Every freelancer, farmer, or startup's got their own problems to fix, and cheap AI access means they can. The paper's obsessed with wealth grabbing all the future benefits, but problems are everywhere, good luck cornering that market. Every one of us has their own problems and stands to get personalized benefits from AI. In the age of AI having problems is linked to receiving its benefits. Imagine for example I feel one side of my face drooping and have speech difficulty, and I type my symptoms into a LLM, and it tells me to quickly visit the doctors. It might save my life from stroke. Who gets the largest benefit here? Problems are distributed even if AI is not.