you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (13 children)

The business model isn't to make money from a chat bot. The aim is to get to AGI and make money that way. Replacing workers with AI would be a gigantic money maker. Nearly all the big players bank on that.

If that is even possible is still unclear. A big bet with billions of dollars.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

    So if AGI is the key to replacing (most) workers, then AGI cannot exist without democratic socialism else we'll all starve.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

    LLM's are cool and all, but you can't use them for anything requiring real precision without allocating human work time to validate the output, unless you want to end up on the national news for producing something fraudulent.

    And making it so their image generator can generate porn isn't going to change that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Yes, currently AI isn't reliable enough to use instead of a human. All the big AI businesses bet that this will change - either by training with more data or some technological breakthrough.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    Could be they're right.

    They tried that with Theranos because Elizabeth Holmes' machine could correctly identify four viruses.

    Presumably LLM's have already trained on the entirety of human knowledge and communication and still produce buggy information, so I'm skeptical that it'll work out the way the VC's expect, but we'll see.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago

    Well, we know absolutely for certain that consciousness is just complex computation... right?

    Because it would be very very silly to have bet all these billions of dollars on a convenient assumption.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    Yes. In the long run you are absolutely right.

    But these are people who pray at the altar of short term growth and for that it's the Holy Grail.

    Wages are one of the biggest expenses for a lot of companies. That's why the first reflex of managers, if the numbers are bad, is "fire people". Ignoring that the loss of knowledge and experience, as well as the additional stress for the remaining people, might very well hasten their demise.

    Now what are these people going to do if you can reduce the biggest expense to a fraction of the original cost while possibly crashing the economy?

    Hint: these are not the same people who will be blamed if the economy tanked and are rich enough to relocate to whatever country still does well.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)