Will wealthier people access better AIs?
Today, billionaires and middle-class everyday people use the same phones. Will that be the case with AIs?
50 comments
An interesting exercise, is to flip that question upside down:
Assuming everyone gets access to the same quality of AI, how will rich people maintain their compounding advantages over the non-wealthy?
The first way, is by having more computing resources. The same AI, but with more computing resources, is going to come up with equal or higher quality results.
The second, is being able to requisition more physical resources. The same AI can help a wealthy person set up a business, by quickly acquiring physical and IP assets, or labor, vs. someone without the wealth to do that.
The third, is by having better information. Small differences in information, such as having a market's trading history just a fraction of a second before someone else, can translate into a lot of economic power. Wealthy people can pay for better information, or put systems into place to get better information.
The fourth, is risk tolerance. Even with an AI helping someone making choices, some choices with the highest expected return also come with the highest volatility or risk. Someone with resources can tolerate a lot of individual risks. But a low resource person will have to play it safe and forgo those opportunities.
Conclusion: The efficiencies delivered by AI will intensify existing compounding effects, and the inequality those already generate.
Even if AI access was somehow kept even.
Assuming everyone gets access to the same quality of AI, how will rich people maintain their compounding advantages over the non-wealthy?
The first way, is by having more computing resources. The same AI, but with more computing resources, is going to come up with equal or higher quality results.
The second, is being able to requisition more physical resources. The same AI can help a wealthy person set up a business, by quickly acquiring physical and IP assets, or labor, vs. someone without the wealth to do that.
The third, is by having better information. Small differences in information, such as having a market's trading history just a fraction of a second before someone else, can translate into a lot of economic power. Wealthy people can pay for better information, or put systems into place to get better information.
The fourth, is risk tolerance. Even with an AI helping someone making choices, some choices with the highest expected return also come with the highest volatility or risk. Someone with resources can tolerate a lot of individual risks. But a low resource person will have to play it safe and forgo those opportunities.
Conclusion: The efficiencies delivered by AI will intensify existing compounding effects, and the inequality those already generate.
Even if AI access was somehow kept even.
I love that you added a conclusion at the end of your list. Adding conclusions to the end of lists is one of ChatGPT's favorite things to do.
One of the reasons OpenAI released ChatGPT when they did was to do the opposite of this, per Sam Altman, co-founder of OpenAI.
source: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/03/on-with-kara-swisher...
Swisher: One of the excuses that tech always uses is you don’t understand it, we need to keep it in the back room. It’s often about competition.
Altman: Well, for us it’s the opposite. I mean, what we’ve said all along — and this is different than what most other AGI efforts have thought — is everybody needs to know about this. AGI should not be built in a secret lab with only the people who are privileged and smart enough to understand it. Part of the reason that we deploy this is, I think, we need the input of the world, and the world needs familiarity with what is in the process of happening, the ability to weigh in, to shape this together. We want that. We need that input, and people deserve it. So I think we’re not the secretive company. We’re quite the opposite. We put the most advanced AI in the world in an API that anybody can use. I don’t think that if we hadn’t started doing that a few years ago, Google or anybody else would be doing it now. They would just be using it secretly to make Google search better.
source: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/03/on-with-kara-swisher...
Swisher: One of the excuses that tech always uses is you don’t understand it, we need to keep it in the back room. It’s often about competition.
Altman: Well, for us it’s the opposite. I mean, what we’ve said all along — and this is different than what most other AGI efforts have thought — is everybody needs to know about this. AGI should not be built in a secret lab with only the people who are privileged and smart enough to understand it. Part of the reason that we deploy this is, I think, we need the input of the world, and the world needs familiarity with what is in the process of happening, the ability to weigh in, to shape this together. We want that. We need that input, and people deserve it. So I think we’re not the secretive company. We’re quite the opposite. We put the most advanced AI in the world in an API that anybody can use. I don’t think that if we hadn’t started doing that a few years ago, Google or anybody else would be doing it now. They would just be using it secretly to make Google search better.
Interesting. Looked at this way, OpenAI is perhaps less ‘closed’ that I thought, since they’re making LLMs available cheaply to so many people, not just the elite with access to the computing power.
This could change very quickly once AI has become an established industry and the markets are captured, and the familiarity argument above doesn't fully apply anymore.
Possibly, probably.
Technology does not, in itself, create all the advantages. I likely have the same model iPhone as Bezos but his contact list probably includes much more powerful people. Similarly, we could have access to the same AI but he’d be positioned to derive much more leverage from it
Technology does not, in itself, create all the advantages. I likely have the same model iPhone as Bezos but his contact list probably includes much more powerful people. Similarly, we could have access to the same AI but he’d be positioned to derive much more leverage from it
As always, knowing what to do with a tool is more important than having the tool in front of you. If the value is in having the tool itself, then it will quickly lose its value, because everyone else will be using it.
Baseline models are going to be commoditized for sure. But when you need to tune it on your specific demands, it will needs more data and expertise. That's going to be luxury that only those wealthy people can enjoy.
AIs are already incredibly expensive. There's no reason to think the current best AIs will be democratized across economic classes. M
You can use chatgpt and many others for free. Doesn’t seem expensive at all actually.
I’m sure a super premium category will emerge, but the 80-20 rule likely applies here.
I’m sure a super premium category will emerge, but the 80-20 rule likely applies here.
Paid users get priority access, with quotas. Free users get to are often shown a "Sorry, at capacity" type screen, that I suspect will increase through time, suggested by the fact that paid quotas are already shrinking, with ChatGPT4.
I suspect these models will usually have a "free", highly limited, option. It's the perfect bait! (worked for me)
I suspect these models will usually have a "free", highly limited, option. It's the perfect bait! (worked for me)
Given how easy it is/will be to set up your own AI SaaS chatbot over time, I expect cost to consumer to trend very close to cost to provide the service. Many companies already have offerings with only a few to few dozen employees.
A few hours a year of compute seems a realistic median usage, so you can do the math. But it's not much. Certainly a premium AI that takes longer to process will cost commensurately more. But again, likely 80-20 rule applies. These more advanced AI aren't likely to be orders of magnitudes better than the cheap/common ones.
It will likely also be common to tier usage such that you only employ more expensive/computationally intensive models when needed. GPT-3.5 can already adequately cover a large number of use cases.
A few hours a year of compute seems a realistic median usage, so you can do the math. But it's not much. Certainly a premium AI that takes longer to process will cost commensurately more. But again, likely 80-20 rule applies. These more advanced AI aren't likely to be orders of magnitudes better than the cheap/common ones.
It will likely also be common to tier usage such that you only employ more expensive/computationally intensive models when needed. GPT-3.5 can already adequately cover a large number of use cases.
I don't follow. You will be able to set up a chatbot, but I can't imagine a home grown solution will ever be as useful as a private one, backed by hundreds of millions of dollars in training. They'll be increasingly, and exceedingly, incomparable, as they become more useful/profitable, as more resources are dumped in.
What path do you see that could make open models competitive?
What path do you see that could make open models competitive?
was said about computers only 50 years ago, it's worth thinking about (tho probably too speculative at this point)
Sure, computers are, but the really important ones - the ones that can perform the biggest calculations, make the fastest trades, mine bitcoin fastest, and now run the heaviest AI models - aren't. Capital always gives advantages, many of which are sizeable. There's a reason that the new AI hotness has investments in the billions.
On other hand we are currently hitting limits or at least we see them. And we have some picture how much resources is required to train and run these models. So I think we could draw some conclusions with spending let's say 1000 and a million to run one or have one available.
> we have some picture how much resources is required to train and run these models
This is the key detail. Even if the software gets 100,000 times better, the training data is still a major limitation. We can't get 100,000x (or even 10x) more data because the current training set is:
- thousands of years of historical text, photos, and user-generated data (trillions of person-hours of work)
- not yet polluted by AI
So while I don't think we know the hard limit of the software, we're close to the hard limit for the training data and we'll also never have "pure" (not ChatGPT-filled) data again.
This is the key detail. Even if the software gets 100,000 times better, the training data is still a major limitation. We can't get 100,000x (or even 10x) more data because the current training set is:
- thousands of years of historical text, photos, and user-generated data (trillions of person-hours of work)
- not yet polluted by AI
So while I don't think we know the hard limit of the software, we're close to the hard limit for the training data and we'll also never have "pure" (not ChatGPT-filled) data again.
I think you will see private, maybe even self-hosted AI. Think about using online stock trading versus having a Bloomberg terminal.
Ask yourself the same question but for web services, games, etc. A wealth gap will exist wrt access to better AI.
Is that the analogy you're choosing? I'm not sure much of a wealth gap exists in software in general. In many ways software is the most egalitarian product in history, since it costs nothing to copy it. Sure, not everyone can afford a $60 game, but there are no $6,000 games.
I think a better analogy (or perhaps a more specific one, since you did mention "web services") would be computing services, i.e. rich startups with hundreds of thousands in credits and funding vs. single bootstrapped founder with a little bit of cash.
I think a better analogy (or perhaps a more specific one, since you did mention "web services") would be computing services, i.e. rich startups with hundreds of thousands in credits and funding vs. single bootstrapped founder with a little bit of cash.
> In many ways software is the most egalitarian product in history,
Indeed, and that's kind of my point. Even in the most egalitarian product in history, a bit of a wealth gap exists. It's inescapable. That $60 game may not cost $6,000, but it won't run on cheap hardware. And it'll probably depend on a good, high speed Internet connection to acquire in the first place...
Current AI is either relatively low cost but centralized, or very expensive to run locally. I believe AI will be more egalitarian than software in general (as Stanford Alpaca showed), if a lot of work is done to make inference at the edge practical.
The open community shouldn't lose sight of this.
Indeed, and that's kind of my point. Even in the most egalitarian product in history, a bit of a wealth gap exists. It's inescapable. That $60 game may not cost $6,000, but it won't run on cheap hardware. And it'll probably depend on a good, high speed Internet connection to acquire in the first place...
Current AI is either relatively low cost but centralized, or very expensive to run locally. I believe AI will be more egalitarian than software in general (as Stanford Alpaca showed), if a lot of work is done to make inference at the edge practical.
The open community shouldn't lose sight of this.
Yeah, I think the underlying theme here is that there is a wealth gap in early adoption of new technology. Nowadays you can buy a Chromebook for $200, but in the late 1990s you'd be lucky to get a computer for under $2000. That led to wealthier kids getting earlier access to computers, which gave them an advantage in early development as compared to their peers who never had the same opportunities. I agree we'll probably see a similar curve with AI.
It's probably worth anticipating and finding a way to mitigate it. In the early days of computers and the internet, schools and libraries had computer labs that were a decent equalizer for kids who didn't have them at home. Maybe we should be thinking about how to make early AI similarly accessible.
It's probably worth anticipating and finding a way to mitigate it. In the early days of computers and the internet, schools and libraries had computer labs that were a decent equalizer for kids who didn't have them at home. Maybe we should be thinking about how to make early AI similarly accessible.
A 200 and 2000 computer has power difference of a few times for example for gaming. And that is single machine where scaling is hard. With AI you can and actually have to throw more resources at.
Select few will pay for premium access, many or most will "pay" with their data.
Trading your private info for societal gain is a proven model, it'll now extend to your..voice patterns?, and so on.
Trading your private info for societal gain is a proven model, it'll now extend to your..voice patterns?, and so on.
[deleted]
There is a naive assumption that AI will be one of the tools at our disposal and that the rich will own better versions of that tool. The rich people merely control the money flow, and they are only useful because the state cannot do it better. With the "eye of sauron" that AI will likely become, the state will know better how to shape the money flow and so it won't need rich or wealthy people. Everyone will be on a subsistence wage, while the state-AI is building the next gen AI with transecendent capabilities.
Considering that the cost of training these things is in the millions of dollars. And the cost per request is on the order of cents. It's likely that AI will operate much like Alexa or the iPhone in that you can't buy a better one than anyone else gets.
Software doesn't really lend itself to custom elitism because the marginal costs are usually close to zero.
Software doesn't really lend itself to custom elitism because the marginal costs are usually close to zero.
> Today, billionaires and middle-class everyday people use the same phones
Don't assume the rich have just one phone. It is common to compartment with several different phones for different purposes. One you only give to family/friends, another for strictly business topics, another for social media, another for giving out publicly on business cards, and the list goes on.
Don't assume the rich have just one phone. It is common to compartment with several different phones for different purposes. One you only give to family/friends, another for strictly business topics, another for social media, another for giving out publicly on business cards, and the list goes on.
You seem to be conflating phones and phone numbers. I guess I don't know for certain that is not common to be juggling half a dozen physical phones, but it seems unhelpful and easily avoided.
They'll typically have an IT guy that handles things for the family. They'd be the one to set up call-forwarding and/or another tidy way of handling multiple numbers via one phone. Haven't done it myself but I'm sure there are numerous ways.
Even a free Google Voice account can manage some of that, but something like DialPad, (Made by the exGoogle engineers that made RingCentral which was bought by Google to make Google Voice) is a paid service that offers more features. If you think of being a celebrity as a business, who's product is that celebrity's name, time, and attention, then it seems obvious they'll have an IT department, a reception desk, a finance department, a social media manager, an assistant to manage their calendar (what's a calendly), etc.
Half a dozen phones's obviously a bit much, but if a phone gets dropped and breaks, the IT person should already have a replacement ready to go, no waiting around being phoneless while someone goes to go to the Apple store.
Half a dozen phones's obviously a bit much, but if a phone gets dropped and breaks, the IT person should already have a replacement ready to go, no waiting around being phoneless while someone goes to go to the Apple store.
It's dead simple: you have a Congressional aide follow you around with pockets stuffed with mobile phones.
This is the premise of "Two Phones" by Kevin Gates. The lyrics are more or less just paraphrasing this comment.
I think it's a great question "What are the social-political-economic ramifications of the dawn of superhuman machine cognition?" It's too big a question for me I am not smart enough to imagine! I hope at least some humans survive and I hope it's not in some horrible dystopia.
"Today, billionaires and middle-class everyday people use the same phones."
Do they? I assume they would have at least additional security features and security monitoring given they're a higher profile target than the average person.
Do they? I assume they would have at least additional security features and security monitoring given they're a higher profile target than the average person.
It may also be that poor people have their services (drivers license renewal, K-12 school, apartment maintenance requests, welfare, job interviews) "improved" by AI while the affluent get to talk to a human
The jetsetters could very well have their personal assistants decide whether/how to interact personally with AI in the wild, or rather to have one of their own local personal AI sub-assistants take care of it.
Wealthier people will have more AI compute power available to them to continuously take care of their interests, and "defend" against attacking AIs that will try to work against their interests.
Arguably this is the case now. I don’t think there’s any way to access chatGPT-4 unless you have the financial bandwidth to allocate an extra $20/month for an OpenAI subscription.
[deleted]
Once trained, incremental inference costs are very cheap. Instead, everyone will have access
I would pay millions for an uncensored AI if I were super wealthy.
Seriously, why?
Sometimes you need someone to write really racy fan fiction for you.
you can't write an HBO show with the current one as you'll hit filters around violence and sex.
running your own will allow you to write anything
running your own will allow you to write anything
because you have millions to spare
While ignoring the open models you could run yourself to similar or better result?
Signs point to yes!
In california the social safety net is so shredded that basically if you cannot create a profit for a company as a human you're dead. They'll pay half the population to kill off the other hald until police can be automated and then they'll use machines to kill the remaining half.