4 ms·

OpenAI WANTS 1 trillion dollars. They do not need it. Arguably no one needs it. I am at best luke-warm on LLMs, but how are any sane people rationalizing these

OpenAI WANTS 1 trillion dollars. They do not need it. Arguably no one needs it. I am at best luke-warm on LLMs, but how are any sane people rationalizing these requests? What is the opportunity cost of spending a billion or even a hundred billion dollars on compute instead of on climate tech or food security or healthcare or literally anything else?!

AtlasBarfed 1y ago
Well, it's the rich's money, dedicated to replacing as many people as possible in the Great war on labor. I easily see the rich betting a trillion dollars especially if it's not their money and they start employing government funds in the name of a fictitious AI arms race. They smell blood in the water. Reducing everyone to as minimum wage as possible. Capital is already concentrated, aligned along monopolies and cartels, oligarchical control, and AI is the final key to total control to whatever degree they desire.
- mschuster91 1y ago
  > Well, it's the rich's money, dedicated to replacing as many people as possible in the Great war on labor. A lot of "the rich's" money is actually backed by the pension funds, 401k and similar investment vehicles. That's the dirty secret in most of today's world. A lot of ultra-large companies would absolutely deserve getting broken up just for being way too powerful, the problem is any such attempts would send the stonk markets and, with them, people's pensions tanking.
  - wubrr 1y ago
    > A lot of "the rich's" money is actually backed by the pension funds, 401k and similar investment vehicles. Not really clear what you mean by this. But arguably all of the rich's money (and all money in general) is backed by labour/the ability to exchange that money for someone else's labour.
    - mschuster91 1y ago
      > Not really clear what you mean by this. The amount of shares in many a large company that are held by passive or semi-passive investment vehicles. It's not just high net worth individuals and nation-state entities (wealth funds) that pump money into YC, Meta, Apple, NVidia, Microsoft and god knows what else, the bulk of the ownerships is held indirectly by the wide masses via one sort or another of pension schemes. Elon Musk doesn't play with his own money on xAI, he plays with the money of his investors, and so do all the other actors in the AI bubble.
      - wubrr 1y ago
        I think you're greatly overestimating how much ownership the general public has. The bottom 90% of the population own like 12% of all equities, while bottom 50% only own 1% [0] [0] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wealthiest-10-americans-own-93-033623827.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wealthiest-10-americans-own-9...
        nosianu 1y ago
        Not direct ownership. He means through pension schemes, indirect dependency.
        AtlasBarfed 1y ago
        Those can be viewed as tools by the elite to control the capital of the plebes. Who runs/controls those funds? My knowledge of the insides of Tesla's governance highlights this. The requirement of index funds to invest fixed amounts in in companies allows CEOs to exert more board control and avoid "investor activism" for things like "roman salutes".
        mschuster91 1y ago
        > Who runs/controls those funds? The uber rich elites, either directly or through "friendships". And that's my point.
  - int_19h 1y ago
    Which is precisely why this arrangement exists. Think of it as chaining the galley slaves to the galley - if it sinks, then so do they, so their "interest" is to keep rowing. But that is a short-term perspective. Long term, if we do nothing, we remain galley slaves.
  - ocdtrekkie 1y ago
    This will only be true a few decades. Nobody entering the workforce today will ever have any retirement funds. Most people who have been in it for a decade will never have any. Pensions aren't even a thing for most people. There will be a point where the common folk have very little remaining incentive not to burn it all down.
- ryandrake 1y ago
  There will be at least one trillionaire within the next 12-24 months, and likely there will be multiple trillionaires within 5 years, the way wealth is consolidating at an accelerated rate. These amounts of investment don't seem to be fictional anymore.

AtlasBarfed 1y ago

Well, it's the rich's money, dedicated to replacing as many people as possible in the Great war on labor. I easily see the rich betting a trillion dollars especially if it's not their money and they start employing government funds in the name of a fictitious AI arms race. They smell blood in the water. Reducing everyone to as minimum wage as possible. Capital is already concentrated, aligned along monopolies and cartels, oligarchical control, and AI is the final key to total control to whatever degree they desire.

mschuster91 1y ago
> Well, it's the rich's money, dedicated to replacing as many people as possible in the Great war on labor. A lot of "the rich's" money is actually backed by the pension funds, 401k and similar investment vehicles. That's the dirty secret in most of today's world. A lot of ultra-large companies would absolutely deserve getting broken up just for being way too powerful, the problem is any such attempts would send the stonk markets and, with them, people's pensions tanking.
- wubrr 1y ago
  > A lot of "the rich's" money is actually backed by the pension funds, 401k and similar investment vehicles. Not really clear what you mean by this. But arguably all of the rich's money (and all money in general) is backed by labour/the ability to exchange that money for someone else's labour.
  - mschuster91 1y ago
    > Not really clear what you mean by this. The amount of shares in many a large company that are held by passive or semi-passive investment vehicles. It's not just high net worth individuals and nation-state entities (wealth funds) that pump money into YC, Meta, Apple, NVidia, Microsoft and god knows what else, the bulk of the ownerships is held indirectly by the wide masses via one sort or another of pension schemes. Elon Musk doesn't play with his own money on xAI, he plays with the money of his investors, and so do all the other actors in the AI bubble.
    - wubrr 1y ago
      I think you're greatly overestimating how much ownership the general public has. The bottom 90% of the population own like 12% of all equities, while bottom 50% only own 1% [0] [0] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wealthiest-10-americans-own-93-033623827.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wealthiest-10-americans-own-9...
      - nosianu 1y ago
        Not direct ownership. He means through pension schemes, indirect dependency.
        AtlasBarfed 1y ago
        Those can be viewed as tools by the elite to control the capital of the plebes. Who runs/controls those funds? My knowledge of the insides of Tesla's governance highlights this. The requirement of index funds to invest fixed amounts in in companies allows CEOs to exert more board control and avoid "investor activism" for things like "roman salutes".
        mschuster91 1y ago
        > Who runs/controls those funds? The uber rich elites, either directly or through "friendships". And that's my point.
- int_19h 1y ago
  Which is precisely why this arrangement exists. Think of it as chaining the galley slaves to the galley - if it sinks, then so do they, so their "interest" is to keep rowing. But that is a short-term perspective. Long term, if we do nothing, we remain galley slaves.
- ocdtrekkie 1y ago
  This will only be true a few decades. Nobody entering the workforce today will ever have any retirement funds. Most people who have been in it for a decade will never have any. Pensions aren't even a thing for most people. There will be a point where the common folk have very little remaining incentive not to burn it all down.
ryandrake 1y ago
There will be at least one trillionaire within the next 12-24 months, and likely there will be multiple trillionaires within 5 years, the way wealth is consolidating at an accelerated rate. These amounts of investment don't seem to be fictional anymore.