> aren’t that many killer products
You've got to be kidding me. Maybe for text. But what about video training neural nets? I could list killer products for days.
You've got to be kidding me. Maybe for text. But what about video training neural nets? I could list killer products for days.
To play devils advocate, even if there were some killer products, value capture seems particularly tricky. There just aren’t any business models that could sustain a market mass of this size.
Lots of cool demos and productivity software (mind you with a very narrow definition of what productivity is).
Unfortunately, the upper echelons of society run on bullshit. And so that's exactly why generative AI is revolutionary. The killer app is in separating dumb billionaires from their billions, just like crypto's killer app was. And just like crypto eventually filtered down to separating dumb retail investors from their thousands, generative AI may eventually filter down to generating scams & spam that separate dumb retail consumers from their thousands. That's why the dumb billionaires are interested in it.
A more logical solution might be to not run society on bullshit, but that seems to be beyond the capabilities of most humans.
There are limitations of course but I’ve been impressed more often than not.
Is it just more vacation?
Or do things change more profoundly?
We have a long human and also programming history that as we gain capabilities, the expectations of that being a standard thing grows.
And this is why you're poor. In fact, depending on your definition of bullshit, if you did not run society on bullshit there wouldn't be billionaires at all. Once you reach the level of technology that can provide for everyone, what need is there to make more?
>The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
Because you can never reach that outcome no matter what your technology is.
Your premise is so vague as to be useless. Provide what for everyone? How much for everyone? Who decides how much for everyone? Based on what? Elected by whom?
If you actually dig into any of that what you'll find is that it's impossible. Unless you use a hyper violent authoritarian model that dictates every minute of every person's life. Otherwise, one person will always have different needs than another person, without exception (and that's so varied we could be here all day listing the differing ways, from freak health situations to genetics to activity choices).
And that's just on matters of basic needs. Then we get into luxuries, any and all things people want beyond basic needs. And then you have to debate the extent to which people require some manner of luxuries beyond basic needs in order to actually continue to exist in a healthy manner. And then you have to get into who decides on that, who dictates which people get which luxuries, if indeed it's decided people require some level of luxury in their life.
And that's just scratching the surface at a minimum for why the premise: once technology has provided for everyone - entirely implodes upon any inspection at all. It never can, it never will. Human desire is infinite up to the point of expiration. That includes the desire for new experiences (can people live without new experiences? doubtful, certainly they'll live horrific miserable lives without such), which is a gigantic envelope of things unto itself, beyond the basic needs category. Who decides what new experiences everyone has access to? How much allocation to that? And on and on and on it goes.
No, the only thing infinite is human greed, the difference between greed and desire is desire can make concessions for the needs of others, greed will burn down the world to get exactly what it wants.
> And then you have to get into who decides on that
As technology concentrates power, it will be the authoritarian leader. Putin is a great example of this. Greed driving him and Russia to ruin.
Generative Text for writing - Jasper AI going 0 to $75m ARR in 2 years
Generative Art for non-artists - Midjourney/Stable Diffusion
Copilot for knowledge workers - both GitHub’s Copilot X and “Copilot for X”
Conversational AI UX - ChatGPT / Bing Chat, with a long tail of Doc QA startups
(shameless plug from https://www.latent.space/p/agents)
And laying off a ton of staff in July..... the latest ARR numbers are not nearly as good.
There is a world in which the dust settles and the current "era" of AI doesn't actually result in a significant amount of productivity/value creation and capture thereof. Everything rests on the current assumption that emergent behaviors and some semblance of consciousness can extrapolate infinitely. You have to believe that in order to justify the investments we're currently seeing in some of the big players.
Plus, it's replacing $$$ humans. 4X the productivity while paying for itself in a few months.
I might be wrong, but from what I know about Transformer models and neural nets in general, what you are describing sounds a lot closer to something like an AGI.
When you say “train a machine” here it sounds a lot closer to “teach a machine” rather than “finding weights and baises for an existing function”.
I think we are still a ways off from AGI.
I’m pretty bearish on all of the other ChatGPT API call apps: I don’t see how limiting ChatGPT to a specific use case is adding value for me.