3 ms·
I think the thing is that it’s not a massive investment to displace a worker. You can spend ten grand a month on AI tools before you start running into the cost
by conception 1y ago
I think the thing is that it’s not a massive investment to displace a worker. You can spend ten grand a month on AI tools before you start running into the cost of a single low end tech employee. That’s a lot of AI tools.
- JCM9 1y agoThe problem with this picture though is you’re spending 10 grand a month on a product someone else is losing 10 grand a month selling you. It’s beginning to look like a house of cards. The finances of many of these companies are on shaky grounds and they claim “profit” without accounting for the true costs of what they’re doing (eg not counting model training in the COGS when the useful life of a model in 2025 is very limited). When investors realize the returns won’t be there and shut off the free cash taps the party will be over.
- spacemadness 1y agoThe problem generally starts with “we need our own nuclear power plants to power this tech.”
- _DeadFred_ 1y agoFor the geeky non-serious sci-fi kid in me it's wild to live in the future, where there is serious talks of building independent from the grid nuclear power plants to power AIs. Because one of the big things from all the pre-thinking about AI was that we definitely DON'T want to be able to turn their power off remotely. Glad removing that capability is already in the plan. Totally doesn't seem sketchy.
- padjo 1y agoBut it’s a bit like saying you can buy an awful lot of hammers for the price of a carpenter.
- conception 1y agoMore like you need to hire a robotics engineer to manage your automated factory.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]