I’m going to attract downvotes, but this article doesn’t convince me he’s becoming powerful and that we should be very afraid. He’s a grifter, sleezy, and making a shit ton of money.
Anyone who has used these tools knows they are useful, but they aren’t the great investment the investors claim they are.
Being able to fool a lot of people into believing the intelligence doesn’t make it good. When it can fool experts in a field, actively learn, or solve problems without training on the issue, that’s impressive.
Generative AI is just a new method of signal processing. The input signal, the text prompt, is passed through a function (the model) to produce another signal (the response). The model is produced by a lot of input text, which can largely be noise.
To get AGI it needs to be able to process a lot of noise, and many different signals. “Reading text” can be one “signal” on a “communication” channel - you can have vision, and sound on it too - body language, speech. But a neural network with human ability would require all five senses, and reflexes to them - fear, guilt, trust, comfort, etc. We are no where near that.
The article seems to be based on a number of flawed premises.
Firstly, that chatgpt is the only LLM. It’s not, and better, stronger, cheaper alternatives are likely to emerge.
Secondly, that LLMs are a step on the way to AGI. Like any minute now they’re going to evolve. They’re not, they’re a one trick pony which is making coherent sentences. That’s it.
Exactly. And that’s why we’re in a bubble. Once the execs are finally convinced by their tech people that LLMs aren’t some kind of magic bullet, we’ll see a pretty big correction. As an investor, I’m not exactly looking forward to that, but as someone who works in tech, I’m honestly not worried about my job.
Strong agree here. You hit on a lot of the core issues on LLMs, so I’ll say my opinions on the economic aspects.
It’s been more than a year since chatGPT released this plague of “slap AI on the product and consumers will put their children down for collateral to buy!” which imo we haven’t seen whatsoever. Investors still have a hard-on for the term AI that goes into the stratosphere but even that is starting to change a little.
Consumers level of AI distrust has risen considerably and consumers have seen past the hype. Wrapping this back around to the CEOs level of power, I just don’t think LLMs are actually going to have enough marketability for general consumers to become juggernaut corpos.
LLMs absolutely have use cases but they don’t fit into most consumer products. No one wants AI washers or rice cookers or friggin AI spoons and shoehorning them in decreases interest in the product.
That’s also how I feel about “smart” devices in general. I don’t want a smart refrigerator, I just want it to work. The same goes for other appliances, like my laundry machine, dishwasher, and rice cooker. The one area I kind of want it, TVs, has been ruined by stupid tracking and ads.
What’s going to kill AI isn’t AI itself, it’s AI being forced into products where it doesn’t make sense, and then ads being thrown in on top to try to make some sort of profit from it.
I’m going to attract downvotes
Not sure anyone ever says this and then has net negative votes. This one is no exception
Honestly, I’m actually surprised. I didn’t think it would be a popular opinion
It’s just funny how often it works out this way.
I agree overall, but fooling experts isn’t what would make AI valuable. Being able to do valuable tasks would make it valuable. And it’s just not good enough at valuable tasks to be valuable.
The one comment I have here is that you may be overlooking the impact LLMs will have on the tech sector.
Basically Homeless just created a wasp-shooting real-world first-person shooter machine with high speed, accuracy, and strength motors, controllers, etc, controlled via Python, using Claude with little knowledge of how to do the hardware or software.
The productivity aspects, especially among those who go through the education system from this day forward, will be forever changed. There are already plenty of developers who wouldn’t give up what they now have access to. Despite the black hole of money it is now, power and wealth will come over time.
Homeless just created a wasp-shooting real-world first-person shooter machine with high speed, accuracy, and strength motors, controllers, etc, controlled via Python, using Claude with little knowledge of how to do the hardware or software.
… Is homeless a company? Are we talking about a video game… a robot… White Anglo Saxon Protestants… What?
Also how does this relate to LLMs?
I don’t have access to it at work. I like what I am able to do with with my own license of Jet brains ai, but it still leaves a lot to be desired.
The bubble will burst in a few years (it really should burst sooner, but too many people are trying to prop up their bad investments).
To put it another way, is this guy really any worse than Musk or any of the other too-wealthy wastes of oxygen rattling around?
Probably not but do we really need more of them?
Thank you! It’s a bubble like the dot com bubble but a slight smaller scale.
those who dedicate their lives to gaining and holding onto massive wealth and power, are the ones least fit to wield massive wealth and power.
Which is why the tax system needs to be reformed.
The political right actually has one good point that we on the left don’t always appreciate: taxes on middle class people should be lower.
Specifically, very liberal tax exemptions on things like 401Ks, including the ability to transfer wealth across generations.
Combine that with higher taxes on the wealthy, and it will be possible to shift power to the middle class.
Consider the total market cap of the S&P 500, rounded up it’s about 50 trillion. Divide that among 130 million households and each household should own about $400K in stock on average.
Full equality is neither achievable nor desired by most people, so a good scheme would be to let every household hold up to $1M in wealth, tax exempt.
And then progressively tax everything above that.
Problem is, people usually by far overestimate their position in society.
If you say “tax the rich” a whole lot of people feel like it’s about them even though they barely count as middle class.
Here in Germany I’ve had countless debates about inheritance tax. If your parents die, you only have to pay taxes (10%) on anything over 400k, and that’s per child. That means, most people will never pay a cent of inheritance tax, yet they are horrified by the idea of it, because they firmly believe, their parents shitty house in a village somewhere will bankrupt them and their two siblings.
People fundamentally don’t understand their own wealth and how tiny their wealth is compared to the billionaires class.
Yes, I fully agree.
So we need to find the right messaging.
I don’t know about Germany, but here in the Netherlands most people identify as middle class.
So “stop taxing the middle class” and “let the billionaires pay more” is a message that should resonate.
I’m optimistic and I believe we will get there. The level of equality we have today would be unfathomable for somebody living before 1945.
Thing is, I agree with your sentiment, but I’m 95% sure, this will be killed by political interests.
Everyone wants to be middle class, be in reality, a married couple of tenured teachers already is upper class. I’m upper class, since I’m a single software developer.
There was a reform recently, where couples having combined incomes over something like 180k would get less benefits for their children. Hardly anybody would have been affected by this, but the genuine outrage of middle class people was gigantic, because these morons don’t want to accept, that they’re not rich.
I’m really afraid for our democracy because so many people are willfully stupid. It’s not that they’re incapable of knowing or understanding, they don’t want to understand. For whatever reason…
No you are not upper class if you are a married couple of teachers, that is exactly the point you made before about people overestimating their place in society. If you have to work to earn money you are not upper class, the upper classes already have so much wealth that they can live off the passive proceeds of that wealth.
Yes your dual income might but you in the top 15% of incomes, but wealth is the defining characteristic of the truly rich not income.
According to the official definition, upper class means being in the top 10% of earners. And for a couple without kids that’s somewhere about 6k, and a teacher makes easily 3k.
That’s the thing is, the average employee is pretty poor, so even such moderate incomes are well within the highest percentiles.
You simply have a different understanding of upper class, that is in my opinion too narrow, since this means a finance bro making half a million a year is not upper class.
The top 10% of income is not upper class. The error that people make, including you, is to focus on income.
People like Elon Musk have incomes smaller than $100K.
Upper class are the people who do not need to work and who live off of capital.
We need to shift our focus on wealth equality.
Look, the economy needs capital. If we want to be less dependent on the capital of rich people, then middle class people need to take over that role.
The people making $100-300K per year are key, because they can provide an alternative source of capital if their tax burden is lowered.
The people making $50K will not be able to provide large amounts of capital.
I mean, what, he’s going to be worse for us than bezos, musk or trump?
He is creating a massive tech bubble that will cost investors billions.
