5 ms·

The market is a group of people.

TeMPOraL 1y ago
Indeed. Here, a very large one. Now, focus on the dynamics of that group to see my point. Or much more elaborately, but also exhaustively and to the point: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/.
- suddenlybananas 1y ago
  I'm not going to read that hack, but in either case, the metaphysical monster of the market you're proposing is not what is propping up LLMs. It's the decisions of actors at major tech companies and VCs. These are people, not magical entities. And even still, LLMs aren't profitable.
  - TeMPOraL 1y ago
    > I'm not going to read that hack, but in either case, the metaphysical monster of the market you're proposing is not what is propping up LLMs. It's the decisions of actors at major tech companies and VCs. These are people, not magical entities. Your loss. The article is actually talking about the thing you're saying. And so am I. These are all people, not magical entities, and that is exactly why the near-term future of "AI being the new electricity" is inevitable (short of a total collapse of civilization). The article spells out the causal mechanism 20 different ways, so I still recommend reading it if the dynamics are not blindingly apparent to you yet.
    - walleeee 1y ago
      It can simultaneously be true that people in these positions have less agency than most other people assume, and more than they themselves might think. Another reply mentions that Bezos can't imagine anything different. If that is so (I am not unwilling to believe a certain lack of imagination tends to exist or emerge in extremely ambitious/successful people) then it's a personal failing, not an inevitable condition of his station, regardless of how much or little agency the enormous machine he sits on top of permits him to wield personally. He certainly doesn't have zero as the commenter claims. FWIW I have read Scott's article and have tried to convince people of the agency of moloch on this site before. But the fact that impersonal systems have agency doesn't mean you suddenly turn into a human iron filing and lose all your self-direction. It might be convenient for some people to claim this is why they can do no different, and then you need to ask who benefits.
CalRobert 1y ago
And you are a collection of cells, but individual cells (mostly) don’t have the ability to dictate your actions
- suddenlybananas 1y ago
  Yeah, but Jeff Bezos does actually have control over Amazon and can make decisions.
  - TeMPOraL 1y ago
    Sort of, kind of. Most decisions you'd see him make would quickly cause his control over Amazon to disappear, without actually improving anything for Amazon workers. That's one part of the bad mental model of organizations and markets (and thus societies) people have. The people at the top may be richer and more powerful, but they're not actually free to do whatever. They have a role to play in the system they ostensibly "control", but when they deviate too far from what the system expects them to do, they get ejected. Never mistake the finger pointing at the Moon for the Moon itself. Also, never mistake the person barking orders for the source from which those orders originate.
    - suddenlybananas 1y ago
      Yeah, these decisions just appear out of the aether, there absolutely not the result of capitalists acting in their self-interest. It's nice to claim, oh poor little me couldn't possibly have done anything else, I guess I just have to benefit from all this money my decisions give me.
      - CalRobert 1y ago
        I think you’re agreeing in a way - they are making the decisions that maximise their profits in the existing system (capitalism) and the system is such that it will produce people like this. They can nudge it in their preferred direction but if they were in, say, a frontier economy they’d likely make different decisions.

Indeed. Here, a very large one. Now, focus on the dynamics of that group to see my point. Or much more elaborately, but also exhaustively and to the point: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/.

suddenlybananas 1y ago
I'm not going to read that hack, but in either case, the metaphysical monster of the market you're proposing is not what is propping up LLMs. It's the decisions of actors at major tech companies and VCs. These are people, not magical entities. And even still, LLMs aren't profitable.
- TeMPOraL 1y ago
  > I'm not going to read that hack, but in either case, the metaphysical monster of the market you're proposing is not what is propping up LLMs. It's the decisions of actors at major tech companies and VCs. These are people, not magical entities. Your loss. The article is actually talking about the thing you're saying. And so am I. These are all people, not magical entities, and that is exactly why the near-term future of "AI being the new electricity" is inevitable (short of a total collapse of civilization). The article spells out the causal mechanism 20 different ways, so I still recommend reading it if the dynamics are not blindingly apparent to you yet.
  - walleeee 1y ago
    It can simultaneously be true that people in these positions have less agency than most other people assume, and more than they themselves might think. Another reply mentions that Bezos can't imagine anything different. If that is so (I am not unwilling to believe a certain lack of imagination tends to exist or emerge in extremely ambitious/successful people) then it's a personal failing, not an inevitable condition of his station, regardless of how much or little agency the enormous machine he sits on top of permits him to wield personally. He certainly doesn't have zero as the commenter claims. FWIW I have read Scott's article and have tried to convince people of the agency of moloch on this site before. But the fact that impersonal systems have agency doesn't mean you suddenly turn into a human iron filing and lose all your self-direction. It might be convenient for some people to claim this is why they can do no different, and then you need to ask who benefits.

CalRobert 1y ago

And you are a collection of cells, but individual cells (mostly) don’t have the ability to dictate your actions

suddenlybananas 1y ago
Yeah, but Jeff Bezos does actually have control over Amazon and can make decisions.
- TeMPOraL 1y ago
  Sort of, kind of. Most decisions you'd see him make would quickly cause his control over Amazon to disappear, without actually improving anything for Amazon workers. That's one part of the bad mental model of organizations and markets (and thus societies) people have. The people at the top may be richer and more powerful, but they're not actually free to do whatever. They have a role to play in the system they ostensibly "control", but when they deviate too far from what the system expects them to do, they get ejected. Never mistake the finger pointing at the Moon for the Moon itself. Also, never mistake the person barking orders for the source from which those orders originate.
  - suddenlybananas 1y ago
    Yeah, these decisions just appear out of the aether, there absolutely not the result of capitalists acting in their self-interest. It's nice to claim, oh poor little me couldn't possibly have done anything else, I guess I just have to benefit from all this money my decisions give me.
    - CalRobert 1y ago
      I think you’re agreeing in a way - they are making the decisions that maximise their profits in the existing system (capitalism) and the system is such that it will produce people like this. They can nudge it in their preferred direction but if they were in, say, a frontier economy they’d likely make different decisions.