3 ms·
So if I understand correctly, it's basically down between: 1. cure cancer 2. fix the economy 3. keep everybody happily employed. And he's saying we can only
by indigoabstract 1y ago
So if I understand correctly, it's basically down between:
1. cure cancer
2. fix the economy
3. keep everybody happily employed.
And he's saying we can only pick two, or pick one. Except for the last one, that's not really an option.
- boshalfoshal 1y agoAnd as it stands, AI is nowhere close to (1) and (2), but is pretty close to making all of (3) redundant. This could be because most work is actually frivilous (very possible), but its also easy for them to sell those since ostensibly (1) and (2) actually require a lot of out of distribution reasoning, thinking, and real agentic research (which current models probably aren't capable of). (3) just makes the most money now with the current technology. Curing cancer with LLMs, though altruistic, is more unrealistic and has no clear path to immediate profitability because of that. These "AGI" companies aren't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts with humanity in mind, its pretty clearly meant to be a "final company standing" type race where everyone at the {winning AI Company} is super rich and powerful in whatever new world paradigm shows up afterwards.