[0] literally; even this comment violates a few
- Companies using investment funds to play the Ai Agent lottery will run out of funds
- Less tokens will be demanded, causing AI companies to raise prices to pay for overheads
- Bubble pops.
(for equivalency of tokens I'd use something like "tasks done by AI")
Meanwhile NVDA go brrrrr.
Rather, why not go deeper? Why not look at the world around you and see what incentives we've built up that allow us to plow trillions of dollars into this without a second thought. We've seen the bust cycles happen and yet here we are: going all-in on a potential technology that might/might not work out as we are hoping it will. If it truly works out as these companies are hoping then it'll be an economic disaster. If it doesn't work as these companies are hoping then it'll be an economic disaster.
Yet the Darios and Altmans of the world always find a way.
I think it comes from a misreading of Marx because Marx considers value coming from Labor which is purely zero sum.
In my bubble within friends and family, practically everyone uses AI and has fun using it and gets value out of it.
My non-tech friends use AI to make funny meme images that they send around on group chats, but would they pay for those? I doubt it.
I can't think of anything in my personal life that I would pay for an AI to do. Businesses, sure... as long as they are getting real value.
Don't you think it's a bit overconfident to dismiss Marx just on such a simplistic interpretation (as he had simply failed to consider that economic activity can be non-zero-sum?)
It's narrow take I think, let us say someone read my comment or blog, among others, and used that shape their understanding, and then by doing that, they offered better consultation, then should that person pay back every author, book and blog they read?
I don't understand what's the argument here, and also the same methods is used to give us open source models..
Enough with the IP maximalism, it's perfectly fine to extract non-copyrightable ideas from copyrighted works.
Society/governments need to figure out another way to take back from those companies and give to the public.
Parasites are mostly bad for health.
So your entire premise is false.
Your point was that parasites give nothing back, thus AI companies can’t be seen as parasites because we get some usefulness out of them.
My only point is that argument is false, since a host can get benefits out of a parasite.
I guess that analogy would be people stop sharing their thoughts publicly, which is as likely as people stop sharing on social media, very unlikely for many reasons.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yCWPkLi8wJvewPbEp/the-noncen...