5 ms·

I like the idea of pacing the frontier, but while we’re talking about restrictions, I like restrictions of another sort more. Namely, restricting the use of AI

I like the idea of pacing the frontier, but while we’re talking about restrictions, I like restrictions of another sort more. Namely, restricting the use of AI in corporate environments so that it does not destroy the economy as it advances. The chance of getting broad agreement on “pacing” is fairly low, meaning that all of this likely won’t happen and the race will continue. However, even in the unlikely event that the frontier does get paced, all this does is slow down the economic displacement and not by very much. If the socially beneficial goals of AI are to make fundamental advancement in medicine and science, then restrict the use of AI to those purposes. Don’t use AI to replace every job, from graphic designer to accountant to software developer. Place legal restrictions on (at least) large companies such that they may not use AI to replace human labor in this way. The pitch for AI is always such that everyone’s living standards are increased, yet the actual actions we see are aimed squarely at reducing them. How about the labs put their money where their mouth is and stop trying to replace all human labor, and actually concentrate on the things they claim to care about? And how about introducing legislation to enforce that? This probably has less chance of happening than pacing the frontier, but it’s the kind of pacing that most people would actually want to see.

rickydroll 23d ago
Whenever someone talks about regulation, I always have the same question: How do you enforce it? How do you keep companies from using the replaced talent as a seat warmer? Hire 1 or 2 accountants, give them a chair and a cubicle, and let AI do the rest of the work. Legislating against using AI to replace employees could create an unevenly distributed basic income. The idea of limiting AI to socially beneficial efforts is appealing, but I keep coming back to Bell Labs and Xerox PARC. Cool stuff was developed when you gave smart people a playground. Maybe the question should be: How do we give AI a playground and see what it comes up with? Although that could set us up with a situation like in the story Dragon's Egg.
- Aurornis 23d ago
  > How do you keep companies from using the replaced talent as a seat warmer? Hire 1 or 2 accountants, give them a chair and a cubicle, and let AI do the rest of the work. I don’t think the proponents of these ideas care about who does the work. They see it as protection for specific jobs. Basically a jobs program with the costs forced on to large corporations. As you said, it becomes a great gift to the few people lucky enough (or more usually, with enough nepotistic connections) to get those easy street jobs. It would not help everyone else in the economy. It would also accelerate moving jobs overseas. Any company that regulates productivity that far downward would be crazy to continue doing automatable work in that country. It just gets moved to foreign offices where they can use AI. There are regulatory maximalists who say we’ll just regulate that, too, but then the whole company relocates to another country. Then some want to try to regulate that, and so on ad infinitum but it’s all layers of holding back your domestic companies so their international competitors can eat their lunch.
  - Loquebantur 23d ago
    Earth isn't infinite. You can and should engage in international regulation, as that is the only way to solve international problems. The idea, capitalism would somehow lead to an ideal world all by itself is demonstrably wrong.
- hgoel 23d ago
  It's all about wanting to preserve the status quo, complete with all the suffering and strife, because change is scary and uncomfortable. Add in the sincere American belief that everyone else is beneath them, and you get the version where they believe even developing countries must accept kneecaping their development so American corporatism doesn't collapse.
- techblueberry 23d ago
  I feel like the contra answer to “how do you enforce it” is like- imperfectly but we can do stuff. Like we can just do stuff. We can fine companies, take away licenses. We are capable! But I also think - I’m not trying to be too negative here because certainly we should be investing in scientists and other discoveries, but early tech - xerox park, googles 20 percent time. They were playing in an extremely immature space. You could throw 20 ideas at a wall and create a billion dollar business. We should do what you’re saying but we should also build institutions and maybe also limit the extent to which we’re building Elysium. If we can build AI models that rival human intelligence we can create laws to protect its dignity.
- oceanplexian 23d ago
  Just a reality check. They can absolutely do it. Altman or Dario will donate some money to Trump, get cozy with the Department of War and make up a bullshit excuse why Open Source needs to be eliminated. All access to this technology will be gatekept by a bunch of nasty people who want to eliminate your job as a knowledge worker and put everything behind a subscription.
- lljk_kennedy 22d ago
  > Hire 1 or 2 accountants, give them a chair and a cubicle, and let AI do the rest of the work. You're so close to describing a Universal Basic Income...
logicchains 23d ago
>Don’t use AI to replace every job, from graphic designer to accountant to software developer. Place legal restrictions on (at least) large companies such that they may not use AI to replace human labor in this way. It's not just "companies". Even if the company does nothing, enterprising employees are going to use LLMs to magnify their productivity, which will may reduce the company's need to hire more employees. And except in extremely locked down environments, there's absolutely no way to stop an employee using some open source LLMs to multiply their productivity.
- xg15 23d ago
  Yes, but that employee might use that increased productivity to do the stuff that's always advertised as the benefits of automation: Allocate more time to tasks that usually don't get it - or: go home earlier and spend more time with friends and family.
Aurornis 23d ago
> Namely, restricting the use of AI in corporate environments so that it does not destroy the economy as it advances. Regulate what, exactly? Limit what AI corporations can use? Other countries would love that more than anything. Basically a free gift to any competitors or any startup that quietly avoids the rules. There’s a theoretical version where all the countries in the world join hands and agree not to compete with each other, but that’s so impractical that I don’t find it interesting to discuss. > Place legal restrictions on (at least) large companies such that they may not use AI to replace human labor in this way. So small companies get the advantage, but large companies don’t? And large companies in other countries also get the advantage? This is a highly precise way for a country to take out all of their large companies. What would actually happen is that every large company would start the process of relocating to another country right away, accelerating job losses rather than slowing them.
- HarHarVeryFunny 23d ago
  > Limit what AI corporations can use? Other countries would love that more than anything. Basically a free gift to any competitors or any startup that quietly avoids the rules. Sure - look at what is being done today with H1B visas and tariffs. What is more important to you - having a job and a functioning economy/society, or upholding some "free market" doctrine you've bought into? Just as with H1B visas, you restrict usage. For example, don't allow AI to replace any job that pays under $250K. If foreign countries make things cheaper, just as China is making EVs that cost a fraction of a Tesla, then slap tariffs on them. A government should be primarily concerned about the people it represents, not about the profitability of the companies who are lobbying/bribing it.
  - Aurornis 23d ago
    > Sure - look at what is being done today with H1B visas and tariffs. I have some bad news for you if you bought into the idea that the tariffs were good for domestic jobs and the economy. > What is more important to you - having a job and a functioning economy/society, or upholding some "free market" doctrine you've bought into? This is the definition of a false dichotomy, and you also ignored (or missed) the point completely. I did not make an argument out of “free market doctrine”. I explained the second order effects that would provide a net reduction in jobs in this country. My wife’s company is going through this right now. H1Bs are expensive and unpredictable, so the solution is to relocate more of the operations outside of the country and build up those offices. Failure to understand second order effects and international economies is pervasive in these arguments for heavy regulations. You can do a lot to hold back your country’s companies to force them to pay for employees they don’t need and those few employees benefit for a while, but it collapses when those companies stop hiring in the regulated countries and resume hiring where they can actually operate a business. If you try to regulate them from doing it anywhere, you’ve given their competitors a wonderful gift to come destroy the company completely. Then they’re not making any jobs for anyone.
HarHarVeryFunny 23d ago
> Namely, restricting the use of AI in corporate environments so that it does not destroy the economy as it advances. Indeed, and the same logic applies as to why allowing companies to replace too many worker's by H1B holders is a bad idea (which equally applies to allowing companies to replace domestic jobs by offshoring). If you don't hire people, who pay taxes, and take what's left to buy stuff and keep the economy going, then how DOES the economy keep going? I guess Amodei sees us all on UBI, aka food stamps, so at least the farmers will be selling something, but is OpenAI going to be accepting food stamps to pay for ChatGPT subscriptions? Tesla better be selling it's robots real cheap if it is planning on selling them to people that only have UBI as an income.
stale2002 23d ago
The whole point of technology is to replace work that we don't want to do. You are attacking the chief reason why people use technology in the first place. Additionally, unemployment levels are perfectly fine. Clearly this mass unemployment prediction isn't happening yet.
- xg15 23d ago
  Work like writing blogs and drawing pictures?
  - stale2002 23d ago
    Yes, there are many parts of those things that some people want to be automated. I and many others are able to execute on our creative vision much fasters and more effectively thanks to automation of that work.
    - vouaobrasil 23d ago
      Personally I find it more difficult now to execute my creative vision compared to years ago with a little less tech. I think there's an optimal point to automation that is easily reached and after that the benefit from automation actually goes away. People just don't like to acknowledge that because it goes against what they're doing and that creates unpleasant cognitive dissonance.
- GrinningFool 23d ago
  You should probably look closer at unemployment numbers in IT vs other spaces. Gains elsewhere are making up for IT losses, but it's a safe bet the people losing their tech jobs aren't career shifting into healthcare and hospitality roles in large numbers.
  - MentalM 23d ago
    > but it's a safe bet the people losing their tech jobs aren't career shifting into healthcare and hospitality roles That is because they can allow themselves to do nothing (for some time). Tech was a very high‑paying type of jobs, so workers could afford not to move into lower‑paid sectors, living on the savings they had accumulated beforehand. In a couple of years market will correct tech-salaries and people will have spent their savings and then there will be your career shifting into healthcare and hospitality roles in large numbers.
CrimsonRain 23d ago
You can "pace" yourself like that if you want. Don't shove your idiotic self-destructive ideas on to others. If you were president during invention of cars, we'd still be horse riding everywhere.
rancar2 23d ago
I think Dario is writing with much of these things in mind, but using this as a specific framed opportunity to enable a better interim and long-term outcome for this planet with us still on it. When the internal motives for Dario are fully shared on the other side of the hill, I think we will find his writing to be more about influencing and shaping policy to steer the world in the best way possible within his ability, control, and knowledge. It’s a commonly held believe with the effective altruism community, which Anthropic team was formed under, to use the policy levers to positively influence the world. If I read this latest writing from Dario through that lens, there are deeper concerns with the AI tooling that go well beyond what’s noted in this singular post and are likely the motivations for re-attempting a slowdown or pacing. I too generally agree with for many reasons like allowing the young OpenAI engineers to make mistakes like the Hugging Face incident in July and put better processes in place (ie where is your decent multi-level fencing controls and harness best practices when disabling security features and where is your energy/spend limits for achieving the mission objective in scope and not warming the world for no reason!) and more time to engineer and deploy better hardware to not warm the world instead of burning through fossil fuels since now data centers in the US can isolate pollution from the grid to exempt themselves from federal regulation.
caaqil 23d ago
> Don’t use AI to replace every job, from graphic designer to accountant to software developer. Place legal restrictions on (at least) large companies such that they may not use AI to replace human labor in this way. AI is taking all of our jobs. We need to control the means, nay, the pace of production. We should build some kind of barrier, not of concrete and cement but also of the regulatory variety, to stop these agents from coming into our special white color cubicles. It's the only way.
alex43578 23d ago
You just invented the job equivalent of rent control, and all the problems that ensue from it.
threecheese 23d ago
Only token cost can slow down the pace of replacement. If Anthropic were to stop all training and allocate 100% of capacity to inference, will this increase or decrease usage cost? If (for example) Fable came down to the cost of Sonnet, corporations will absolutely jam in the gas pedal.
abustamam 23d ago
> stop trying to replace all human labor A lot of companies trying to replace human labor with AI are either lying (theyre laying off because they over hired and need to correct) or will regret it. That being said, what's the difference between a company that replaces 5 people with AI and a company who would have otherwise had 5 job openings, but decided to delegate to AI? Personally, I-d rather be able to reap the economic benefits of AI by having a 4 day workweek. Instead of using AI to replace 1 FTE, use AI to offload 8h of work a day for 5 FTEs. Of course, this is probably more outlandish than your idea. (Or, we could just make basic income a thing and no one has to worry about their basic needs, but if they want the new iPhone Duo or a Rivian or other luxuries, they can work for it, but that idea is probably most outlandish of all)
augment_me 23d ago
This is a call to end capitalism. Its completely impossible to do what you suggest with the incentives of capitalism.
- anon291 23d ago
  Forget capitalism. This is a call to end the basic right of people to multiply matrices
- Davidzheng 22d ago
  Actually capitalism kind of has to end further down this road if we don't want to cede control completely to super intelligent ais and their direct "owners".
  - Davidzheng 22d ago
    Market equilibrium probably tends to give 100% resource to ai building bc it leads to most returns and all human labor goes to zero. Caveat I know nothing about economics lol--but this is my uninformed opinion.
uncomputation 23d ago
> I like restrictions of another sort more. Namely, restricting the use of AI in corporate environments so that it does not destroy the economy as it advances. Careful, you’re making too much sense. The big model providers would much rather the ball be in their court. “Deceleration” meaning Anthropic and OpenAI offer less capabilities for more money in service of “protecting humanity from extinction” rather than penny pinching. A lot of “AI research” coming out of these “labs” (increasingly enterprise) seems to be more driven by a cost benefit analysis from suits rather than genuine contributions to the field. I think the last true innovation was the idea of using doom and ending the human race as a marketing gimmick, which strangely seems to have worked in setting the narrative and captivating the sci-fi imaginations of journalists and techies alike.
skue 23d ago
There are serious people trying to figure out what that looks like. Check out the recent Freakonomics episode with Gina Raimondo.
Davidzheng 22d ago
Doesn't it just incentive the business to be outcompeted by one that uses ai more--unless the consumer is choosing based on morals

rickydroll 23d ago

Whenever someone talks about regulation, I always have the same question: How do you enforce it? How do you keep companies from using the replaced talent as a seat warmer? Hire 1 or 2 accountants, give them a chair and a cubicle, and let AI do the rest of the work. Legislating against using AI to replace employees could create an unevenly distributed basic income. The idea of limiting AI to socially beneficial efforts is appealing, but I keep coming back to Bell Labs and Xerox PARC. Cool stuff was developed when you gave smart people a playground. Maybe the question should be: How do we give AI a playground and see what it comes up with? Although that could set us up with a situation like in the story Dragon's Egg.

Aurornis 23d ago
> How do you keep companies from using the replaced talent as a seat warmer? Hire 1 or 2 accountants, give them a chair and a cubicle, and let AI do the rest of the work. I don’t think the proponents of these ideas care about who does the work. They see it as protection for specific jobs. Basically a jobs program with the costs forced on to large corporations. As you said, it becomes a great gift to the few people lucky enough (or more usually, with enough nepotistic connections) to get those easy street jobs. It would not help everyone else in the economy. It would also accelerate moving jobs overseas. Any company that regulates productivity that far downward would be crazy to continue doing automatable work in that country. It just gets moved to foreign offices where they can use AI. There are regulatory maximalists who say we’ll just regulate that, too, but then the whole company relocates to another country. Then some want to try to regulate that, and so on ad infinitum but it’s all layers of holding back your domestic companies so their international competitors can eat their lunch.
- Loquebantur 23d ago
  Earth isn't infinite. You can and should engage in international regulation, as that is the only way to solve international problems. The idea, capitalism would somehow lead to an ideal world all by itself is demonstrably wrong.
hgoel 23d ago
It's all about wanting to preserve the status quo, complete with all the suffering and strife, because change is scary and uncomfortable. Add in the sincere American belief that everyone else is beneath them, and you get the version where they believe even developing countries must accept kneecaping their development so American corporatism doesn't collapse.
techblueberry 23d ago
I feel like the contra answer to “how do you enforce it” is like- imperfectly but we can do stuff. Like we can just do stuff. We can fine companies, take away licenses. We are capable! But I also think - I’m not trying to be too negative here because certainly we should be investing in scientists and other discoveries, but early tech - xerox park, googles 20 percent time. They were playing in an extremely immature space. You could throw 20 ideas at a wall and create a billion dollar business. We should do what you’re saying but we should also build institutions and maybe also limit the extent to which we’re building Elysium. If we can build AI models that rival human intelligence we can create laws to protect its dignity.
oceanplexian 23d ago
Just a reality check. They can absolutely do it. Altman or Dario will donate some money to Trump, get cozy with the Department of War and make up a bullshit excuse why Open Source needs to be eliminated. All access to this technology will be gatekept by a bunch of nasty people who want to eliminate your job as a knowledge worker and put everything behind a subscription.
lljk_kennedy 22d ago
> Hire 1 or 2 accountants, give them a chair and a cubicle, and let AI do the rest of the work. You're so close to describing a Universal Basic Income...

logicchains 23d ago

>Don’t use AI to replace every job, from graphic designer to accountant to software developer. Place legal restrictions on (at least) large companies such that they may not use AI to replace human labor in this way. It's not just "companies". Even if the company does nothing, enterprising employees are going to use LLMs to magnify their productivity, which will may reduce the company's need to hire more employees. And except in extremely locked down environments, there's absolutely no way to stop an employee using some open source LLMs to multiply their productivity.

xg15 23d ago
Yes, but that employee might use that increased productivity to do the stuff that's always advertised as the benefits of automation: Allocate more time to tasks that usually don't get it - or: go home earlier and spend more time with friends and family.

Aurornis 23d ago

> Namely, restricting the use of AI in corporate environments so that it does not destroy the economy as it advances. Regulate what, exactly? Limit what AI corporations can use? Other countries would love that more than anything. Basically a free gift to any competitors or any startup that quietly avoids the rules. There’s a theoretical version where all the countries in the world join hands and agree not to compete with each other, but that’s so impractical that I don’t find it interesting to discuss. > Place legal restrictions on (at least) large companies such that they may not use AI to replace human labor in this way. So small companies get the advantage, but large companies don’t? And large companies in other countries also get the advantage? This is a highly precise way for a country to take out all of their large companies. What would actually happen is that every large company would start the process of relocating to another country right away, accelerating job losses rather than slowing them.

HarHarVeryFunny 23d ago
> Limit what AI corporations can use? Other countries would love that more than anything. Basically a free gift to any competitors or any startup that quietly avoids the rules. Sure - look at what is being done today with H1B visas and tariffs. What is more important to you - having a job and a functioning economy/society, or upholding some "free market" doctrine you've bought into? Just as with H1B visas, you restrict usage. For example, don't allow AI to replace any job that pays under $250K. If foreign countries make things cheaper, just as China is making EVs that cost a fraction of a Tesla, then slap tariffs on them. A government should be primarily concerned about the people it represents, not about the profitability of the companies who are lobbying/bribing it.
- Aurornis 23d ago
  > Sure - look at what is being done today with H1B visas and tariffs. I have some bad news for you if you bought into the idea that the tariffs were good for domestic jobs and the economy. > What is more important to you - having a job and a functioning economy/society, or upholding some "free market" doctrine you've bought into? This is the definition of a false dichotomy, and you also ignored (or missed) the point completely. I did not make an argument out of “free market doctrine”. I explained the second order effects that would provide a net reduction in jobs in this country. My wife’s company is going through this right now. H1Bs are expensive and unpredictable, so the solution is to relocate more of the operations outside of the country and build up those offices. Failure to understand second order effects and international economies is pervasive in these arguments for heavy regulations. You can do a lot to hold back your country’s companies to force them to pay for employees they don’t need and those few employees benefit for a while, but it collapses when those companies stop hiring in the regulated countries and resume hiring where they can actually operate a business. If you try to regulate them from doing it anywhere, you’ve given their competitors a wonderful gift to come destroy the company completely. Then they’re not making any jobs for anyone.

HarHarVeryFunny 23d ago

> Namely, restricting the use of AI in corporate environments so that it does not destroy the economy as it advances. Indeed, and the same logic applies as to why allowing companies to replace too many worker's by H1B holders is a bad idea (which equally applies to allowing companies to replace domestic jobs by offshoring). If you don't hire people, who pay taxes, and take what's left to buy stuff and keep the economy going, then how DOES the economy keep going? I guess Amodei sees us all on UBI, aka food stamps, so at least the farmers will be selling something, but is OpenAI going to be accepting food stamps to pay for ChatGPT subscriptions? Tesla better be selling it's robots real cheap if it is planning on selling them to people that only have UBI as an income.

stale2002 23d ago

The whole point of technology is to replace work that we don't want to do. You are attacking the chief reason why people use technology in the first place. Additionally, unemployment levels are perfectly fine. Clearly this mass unemployment prediction isn't happening yet.

xg15 23d ago
Work like writing blogs and drawing pictures?
- stale2002 23d ago
  Yes, there are many parts of those things that some people want to be automated. I and many others are able to execute on our creative vision much fasters and more effectively thanks to automation of that work.
  - vouaobrasil 23d ago
    Personally I find it more difficult now to execute my creative vision compared to years ago with a little less tech. I think there's an optimal point to automation that is easily reached and after that the benefit from automation actually goes away. People just don't like to acknowledge that because it goes against what they're doing and that creates unpleasant cognitive dissonance.
GrinningFool 23d ago
You should probably look closer at unemployment numbers in IT vs other spaces. Gains elsewhere are making up for IT losses, but it's a safe bet the people losing their tech jobs aren't career shifting into healthcare and hospitality roles in large numbers.
- MentalM 23d ago
  > but it's a safe bet the people losing their tech jobs aren't career shifting into healthcare and hospitality roles That is because they can allow themselves to do nothing (for some time). Tech was a very high‑paying type of jobs, so workers could afford not to move into lower‑paid sectors, living on the savings they had accumulated beforehand. In a couple of years market will correct tech-salaries and people will have spent their savings and then there will be your career shifting into healthcare and hospitality roles in large numbers.

CrimsonRain 23d ago

You can "pace" yourself like that if you want. Don't shove your idiotic self-destructive ideas on to others. If you were president during invention of cars, we'd still be horse riding everywhere.

rancar2 23d ago

I think Dario is writing with much of these things in mind, but using this as a specific framed opportunity to enable a better interim and long-term outcome for this planet with us still on it. When the internal motives for Dario are fully shared on the other side of the hill, I think we will find his writing to be more about influencing and shaping policy to steer the world in the best way possible within his ability, control, and knowledge. It’s a commonly held believe with the effective altruism community, which Anthropic team was formed under, to use the policy levers to positively influence the world. If I read this latest writing from Dario through that lens, there are deeper concerns with the AI tooling that go well beyond what’s noted in this singular post and are likely the motivations for re-attempting a slowdown or pacing. I too generally agree with for many reasons like allowing the young OpenAI engineers to make mistakes like the Hugging Face incident in July and put better processes in place (ie where is your decent multi-level fencing controls and harness best practices when disabling security features and where is your energy/spend limits for achieving the mission objective in scope and not warming the world for no reason!) and more time to engineer and deploy better hardware to not warm the world instead of burning through fossil fuels since now data centers in the US can isolate pollution from the grid to exempt themselves from federal regulation.

caaqil 23d ago

> Don’t use AI to replace every job, from graphic designer to accountant to software developer. Place legal restrictions on (at least) large companies such that they may not use AI to replace human labor in this way. AI is taking all of our jobs. We need to control the means, nay, the pace of production. We should build some kind of barrier, not of concrete and cement but also of the regulatory variety, to stop these agents from coming into our special white color cubicles. It's the only way.

alex43578 23d ago

You just invented the job equivalent of rent control, and all the problems that ensue from it.

threecheese 23d ago

Only token cost can slow down the pace of replacement. If Anthropic were to stop all training and allocate 100% of capacity to inference, will this increase or decrease usage cost? If (for example) Fable came down to the cost of Sonnet, corporations will absolutely jam in the gas pedal.

abustamam 23d ago

> stop trying to replace all human labor A lot of companies trying to replace human labor with AI are either lying (theyre laying off because they over hired and need to correct) or will regret it. That being said, what's the difference between a company that replaces 5 people with AI and a company who would have otherwise had 5 job openings, but decided to delegate to AI? Personally, I-d rather be able to reap the economic benefits of AI by having a 4 day workweek. Instead of using AI to replace 1 FTE, use AI to offload 8h of work a day for 5 FTEs. Of course, this is probably more outlandish than your idea. (Or, we could just make basic income a thing and no one has to worry about their basic needs, but if they want the new iPhone Duo or a Rivian or other luxuries, they can work for it, but that idea is probably most outlandish of all)

augment_me 23d ago

This is a call to end capitalism. Its completely impossible to do what you suggest with the incentives of capitalism.

anon291 23d ago
Forget capitalism. This is a call to end the basic right of people to multiply matrices
Davidzheng 22d ago
Actually capitalism kind of has to end further down this road if we don't want to cede control completely to super intelligent ais and their direct "owners".
- Davidzheng 22d ago
  Market equilibrium probably tends to give 100% resource to ai building bc it leads to most returns and all human labor goes to zero. Caveat I know nothing about economics lol--but this is my uninformed opinion.

uncomputation 23d ago

> I like restrictions of another sort more. Namely, restricting the use of AI in corporate environments so that it does not destroy the economy as it advances. Careful, you’re making too much sense. The big model providers would much rather the ball be in their court. “Deceleration” meaning Anthropic and OpenAI offer less capabilities for more money in service of “protecting humanity from extinction” rather than penny pinching. A lot of “AI research” coming out of these “labs” (increasingly enterprise) seems to be more driven by a cost benefit analysis from suits rather than genuine contributions to the field. I think the last true innovation was the idea of using doom and ending the human race as a marketing gimmick, which strangely seems to have worked in setting the narrative and captivating the sci-fi imaginations of journalists and techies alike.

skue 23d ago

There are serious people trying to figure out what that looks like. Check out the recent Freakonomics episode with Gina Raimondo.

Davidzheng 22d ago

Doesn't it just incentive the business to be outcompeted by one that uses ai more--unless the consumer is choosing based on morals