Microsoft and Alphabet both reported mostly strong results Tuesday, but the disparate reactions from investors showed that Wall Street only cares about AI now.
I totally agree that we’re just scratching the surface of what AI can do. But I don’t think it’s what Wall Street thinks it is. It’s not too terribly difficult to spin up an LLM, which means it’s going to be difficult to set up chokepoints to extract rent.
Though I bet they’ll get the government’s help with that by regulating AI for “safety.” The big guys won’t have a problem but anyone else will have illegal programs running.
I think we might end up with the Microsoft/Apple/Google situation all over again. While it’s easy to build an AI, having to jump between AIs for each and every task is no fun. I think the one that wins the golden goose is the one that manages to build a complete OS with AI at it’s core, i.e. instead of Unix shell, you just have a ChatGPT-like thing sitting there that it can interact with all your data and other software in a save and reliable manner. Basically the computer from StarTrek were you just tell it what you want and it figures out how to get it.
That others can spin up their own LLM won’t help here, as whoever gets to be the default AI that pops up when you switch on your computer will be the one that has the control and can reek the benefits.
Yes, but whoever overcomes those problems will be the next Microsoft/Apple/Google (or get rich by getting bough by either of them). I think a large paradigm shift in how we do computing is unavoidable, LLMs are way to powerful to just be left as chatbots.
Do you think these problems are solvable, and not inherent characteristics? I don’t know, I expect to see computers with high performant ai modules, but not a full ai computer.
Just have the LLM output verifiable scripts instead of manipulating the data directly itself and have version control for the data so the AI can undo changes. All pretty doable, though maybe tricky to get into old apps.
I agree corporations will lobby for a legalized monopoly so they’re able to extract rent.
Generative AI will only grow to replace more and more labor. Labor is most corporations largest expense. Participating in the economy as labor is how most people make their living.
If AI replaces labor, regardless of who controls it, it will change the world’s economy by putting most people out of a job.
This only works if we have a system in place to handle most humans not working. Like a UBI of some kind. Capitalism can’t function once there are no more jobs to work.
I’m really confused by these comments. I work on AI and absolutely hate all the clickbait and marketing simple algorithms as actual AI. But this seems like the pendulum swinging way too hard the other way.
To put it bluntly - No, it is not simple or trivial to “spin up” an LLM. Unless you want it to be worse than simple chatbots that have already existed for over a decade.
I totally agree that we’re just scratching the surface of what AI can do. But I don’t think it’s what Wall Street thinks it is. It’s not too terribly difficult to spin up an LLM, which means it’s going to be difficult to set up chokepoints to extract rent.
Though I bet they’ll get the government’s help with that by regulating AI for “safety.” The big guys won’t have a problem but anyone else will have illegal programs running.
I think we might end up with the Microsoft/Apple/Google situation all over again. While it’s easy to build an AI, having to jump between AIs for each and every task is no fun. I think the one that wins the golden goose is the one that manages to build a complete OS with AI at it’s core, i.e. instead of Unix shell, you just have a ChatGPT-like thing sitting there that it can interact with all your data and other software in a save and reliable manner. Basically the computer from StarTrek were you just tell it what you want and it figures out how to get it.
That others can spin up their own LLM won’t help here, as whoever gets to be the default AI that pops up when you switch on your computer will be the one that has the control and can reek the benefits.
While a full ai computer can sound cool, it would behave in a non reproducible and error prone way.
Yes, but whoever overcomes those problems will be the next Microsoft/Apple/Google (or get rich by getting bough by either of them). I think a large paradigm shift in how we do computing is unavoidable, LLMs are way to powerful to just be left as chatbots.
Do you think these problems are solvable, and not inherent characteristics? I don’t know, I expect to see computers with high performant ai modules, but not a full ai computer.
Just have the LLM output verifiable scripts instead of manipulating the data directly itself and have version control for the data so the AI can undo changes. All pretty doable, though maybe tricky to get into old apps.
Exactly. It isn’t hard to spin up an LLM.
I agree corporations will lobby for a legalized monopoly so they’re able to extract rent.
Generative AI will only grow to replace more and more labor. Labor is most corporations largest expense. Participating in the economy as labor is how most people make their living.
If AI replaces labor, regardless of who controls it, it will change the world’s economy by putting most people out of a job.
Good. Work sucks. Let robots do it.
This only works if we have a system in place to handle most humans not working. Like a UBI of some kind. Capitalism can’t function once there are no more jobs to work.
This just gets better and better!
I’m really confused by these comments. I work on AI and absolutely hate all the clickbait and marketing simple algorithms as actual AI. But this seems like the pendulum swinging way too hard the other way.
To put it bluntly - No, it is not simple or trivial to “spin up” an LLM. Unless you want it to be worse than simple chatbots that have already existed for over a decade.