I'm assuming there won't be more meaningful work for most of population to do that AI can't do. Some people think the opposite. That seems to be the main point of contention.
If AGI occurs some form of communism will be necessary no? How else will they cover all the costs of UBI?
It's our work/earths resources/internet its been born from, it should benefit us all.
Just don't click them, this and tons of other services wouldn't exist without revenue streams...
EDIT: Based on the tsunami of responses, perhaps a hybrid offering with a paid ad-free version? Even then they would only be building a single product so directional conflict would still arise..
In the first case there are inherent safety constraints preventing it and thus its not available to public to freely use. It's highly regulated. With GPT to writing code, it is already generally available and in heavy use. There are no such life-and-death concerns in the main.
In the second case there are inherent technical challenges to using non-fiat currency and the fx volatility with fiat is wild. There are also barriers and inconveniences to conversion. With GPT writing code, the user can review for quality and still be many x more productive and there is far fewer fees and risk of loss.
It's risky to take two failed or slow innovations and assume that all innovations will be failed or slow.
New product that push that bar and can command a decent margin (and good staff salaries) as long as there's a business case/demand and feature-sets that currently command a decent margin will be available for dirt cheap prices (managed by one or two person outfits).
Your comment really got me thinking, it's time to upskill haha. Aside from biotech and robotics do you see any areas particularly ripe for this push?
If they're high growth yes, if they're in the majority of businesses that are just trying to maximise profit with negligible or no growth then likely not.
Three things that get me about current AI discourse:
- The public focus on AGI is almost a distraction. By the time we get to AGI highly-specialised models will have taken jobs from huge swaths of the population, SWE and CS are already in play.
- That AI will need to carry out every task a role does to replace it. I see this a lot on HN. What if SWEs get 50% more efficient and they fire half? That's still a gigantic economic impact. Even at the current state of the art this is plausible.
- The notion that everyone laid off above will find new employment from the opportunities AI creates. Perhaps it's just a gap in my knowledge. What opportunities are so large they'll make up for the economies we're starting to see? I understand the inverting population pyramid in the Western world helps this some also (more retirees/less workers).
I tend to default to DT for any open-ended/creative problem. Write it down in Apple Notes, let it simmer on the back burner for a while and add ideas as they come.
I figured the point was learning a mental model of the solution or how it was arrived at, so this can be reused as a template for different problems.
As an aside, for non-programming mental models I found the Personal MBA by Josh Kaufman to be fantastic. Its title and marketing cheapen it a bit but the content is on point, extracting the best reusable patterns from graduate business education.
Honest question: if they're only beating GPT 3.5 with their latest model (not GPT 4) and OpenAI/Google have infrastructure on tap and a huge distribution advantage via existing products - what chance do they stand?
This matches far better with the board's letter re: firing Sam than a simple power struggle or disagreement on commercialisation.
Seeing a huge breakthrough and then not reporting it to the board, who then find out via staff letter certainly counts as a "lack of candour"....
As an aside, assuming a doomsday scenario, how long can secrets like this stay outside of the hands of bad actors? On a scale of 1 to enriched uranium