7 ms·

This is all talking about the big companies investing in AI as a service to sell to others. The whole financial aspect of all the articles is focused on invest

This is all talking about the big companies investing in AI as a service to sell to others. The whole financial aspect of all the articles is focused on investing in a service to sell? But the moment that the AI can exceed a human programmer, at something as narrow as coding, then the company that has that AI shouldn't sell it to replace humans at other companies - it should instead use it to write programs to replace the other companies. And the moment an AI can exceed a human generally, then the company that has that AI shouldn't sell it to replace humans at other companies - it should instead ask it how to dominate the world and replace all other companies (with side quest to ensure no competitor achieves AGI)?

adrianN 1y ago
Making a successful software company requires a lot more than good programmers.
MountDoom 1y ago
> But the moment that the AI can exceed a human programmer, at something as narrow as coding, then the company that has that AI shouldn't sell it to replace humans at other companies - it should instead use it to write programs to replace the other companies. I'm not sure this is a good take. There's a reason why Microsoft employs 200,000+ people, and you can be sure most of them they're not cranking out code 9-to-5. Companies are living organisms more than they are pieces of software. In fact, the source code for Windows has been leaked a number of times over the years, and it resulted in approximately $0 revenue lost.
tacitusarc 1y ago
Specialization tends to preclude this. Why doesn’t TSMC just fab the chips and not create their own? Why do (effectively all) farmers sell grain rather baked goods? Why don’t lumber yards sell furniture? For sure, there are some fantastically successful, vertically integrated companies. But mostly it’s less risky to sell the shovels rather than mine the gold.
- willvarfar 1y ago
  Your examples are all hardware. Software is something that can be completely automated. Its just compute budget. They can create a ERM from scratch _and_ provide all the migration scripts to move customers off of the competitors etc. Its just compute.
  - Yoric 1y ago
    Not really. Even if we imagine perfect automated developers, it's also market research, marketing, tracking user feedback, tracking legal requirements, collecting and fixing issues, etc.
    - Nevermark 1y ago
      But the G in AGI is there for a reason. Any transition to essentially all AGI is going to involve people for a while. But the bulk of decision making and activity would move to the AGI rapidly. The key is, suddenly intellectual labor has a nearly free marginal cost. Including the intellectual labor of managing different units, each with a different focus. Where is the bottleneck? Right now, human beings, our costs, limitations, individual idiosyncrasies, inability to scale, unreliability, down time, etc., are the most profound bottlenecks companies have.
      - Yoric 1y ago
        As of this day, AGI is faith, not a technology. If AGI ever arrives and is in any way cost-efficient, our entire society is obsolete and the only jobs that matter are pretty much mining and taking care of hardware until robots take over. That and techno-libertarian aristocrat, of course.
      - tacitusarc 1y ago
        Note that I initially replied to this: > But the moment that the AI can exceed a human programmer, at something as narrow as coding, then the company that has that AI shouldn't sell it to replace humans at other companies - it should instead use it to write programs to replace the other companies. That paragraph makes a very narrow claim, unlike your broad one about AGI.

adrianN 1y ago

Making a successful software company requires a lot more than good programmers.

MountDoom 1y ago

> But the moment that the AI can exceed a human programmer, at something as narrow as coding, then the company that has that AI shouldn't sell it to replace humans at other companies - it should instead use it to write programs to replace the other companies. I'm not sure this is a good take. There's a reason why Microsoft employs 200,000+ people, and you can be sure most of them they're not cranking out code 9-to-5. Companies are living organisms more than they are pieces of software. In fact, the source code for Windows has been leaked a number of times over the years, and it resulted in approximately $0 revenue lost.

tacitusarc 1y ago

Specialization tends to preclude this. Why doesn’t TSMC just fab the chips and not create their own? Why do (effectively all) farmers sell grain rather baked goods? Why don’t lumber yards sell furniture? For sure, there are some fantastically successful, vertically integrated companies. But mostly it’s less risky to sell the shovels rather than mine the gold.

willvarfar 1y ago
Your examples are all hardware. Software is something that can be completely automated. Its just compute budget. They can create a ERM from scratch _and_ provide all the migration scripts to move customers off of the competitors etc. Its just compute.
- Yoric 1y ago
  Not really. Even if we imagine perfect automated developers, it's also market research, marketing, tracking user feedback, tracking legal requirements, collecting and fixing issues, etc.
  - Nevermark 1y ago
    But the G in AGI is there for a reason. Any transition to essentially all AGI is going to involve people for a while. But the bulk of decision making and activity would move to the AGI rapidly. The key is, suddenly intellectual labor has a nearly free marginal cost. Including the intellectual labor of managing different units, each with a different focus. Where is the bottleneck? Right now, human beings, our costs, limitations, individual idiosyncrasies, inability to scale, unreliability, down time, etc., are the most profound bottlenecks companies have.
    - Yoric 1y ago
      As of this day, AGI is faith, not a technology. If AGI ever arrives and is in any way cost-efficient, our entire society is obsolete and the only jobs that matter are pretty much mining and taking care of hardware until robots take over. That and techno-libertarian aristocrat, of course.
    - tacitusarc 1y ago
      Note that I initially replied to this: > But the moment that the AI can exceed a human programmer, at something as narrow as coding, then the company that has that AI shouldn't sell it to replace humans at other companies - it should instead use it to write programs to replace the other companies. That paragraph makes a very narrow claim, unlike your broad one about AGI.