You speak with a passive voice, as if the future is something that happens to you, rather than something that you participate in.
The market, meant in a general sense, is stronger than any individual or groups of people. LLMs are here, and already demonstrate enough productive value to make them in high demand for objective reasons (vs. just as a speculation vehicle). They're not going away, nor is larger GenAI. It would take a collapse of technological civilization to turn the tide back now.
Or much more elaborately, but also exhaustively and to the point: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/.
Your loss. The article is actually talking about the thing you're saying. And so am I. These are all people, not magical entities, and that is exactly why the near-term future of "AI being the new electricity" is inevitable (short of a total collapse of civilization).
The article spells out the causal mechanism 20 different ways, so I still recommend reading it if the dynamics are not blindingly apparent to you yet.
Another reply mentions that Bezos can't imagine anything different. If that is so (I am not unwilling to believe a certain lack of imagination tends to exist or emerge in extremely ambitious/successful people) then it's a personal failing, not an inevitable condition of his station, regardless of how much or little agency the enormous machine he sits on top of permits him to wield personally. He certainly doesn't have zero as the commenter claims.
FWIW I have read Scott's article and have tried to convince people of the agency of moloch on this site before. But the fact that impersonal systems have agency doesn't mean you suddenly turn into a human iron filing and lose all your self-direction. It might be convenient for some people to claim this is why they can do no different, and then you need to ask who benefits.
That's one part of the bad mental model of organizations and markets (and thus societies) people have. The people at the top may be richer and more powerful, but they're not actually free to do whatever. They have a role to play in the system they ostensibly "control", but when they deviate too far from what the system expects them to do, they get ejected.
Never mistake the finger pointing at the Moon for the Moon itself. Also, never mistake the person barking orders for the source from which those orders originate.
That's the nature of self-reinforcing feedback loops.
Virus can kill their hosts, and a bunch of individuals can have significant harmful impact on societies.
Much like viruses, systems are subject to selection pressures over time. Systems that are too damaging to society makes society develop memetic, cultural and legal immunity against them. Systems that let individual members easily kill them are fragile and don't survive either.
Systems that thrive are ones that are mild enough to not cause too much external resistance, and are resilient enough to not allow individuals to accidentally or intentionally break them from within.
Their decisions are absolutely constrained by the system's values. They have zero agency in this, and are literally unable to imagine anything different.
There's no total ownership in structures as large as this - neither in companies nor in countries. There are other stakeholders, and then the organization has a mind of its own, and they all react to actions of whoever is nominally "running it".
The truth is, no one just acquires power on their own - people with power have it because other people let them, and they can wield this power only as long, and only in ways, as others allow it. Gaining power doesn't make one more free to exercise it - on the contrary, the more power you have, the more constrained you are by interests of those who provide you that power.
In the same way once a certain threshold is reached in the utility of AI (in a similar vein to the "once I saw the Internet for the first time I knew I would just keep using it") it becomes "inevitable"; it becomes a cheaper option than "the way we've always done it", a better option, or some combination of the two.
So, as is very common in technological innovation / revolution, the question isn't will it change the way things are done so much as where will it shift the cost curve? How deeply will it displace "the way we've always done it"? How many hand weaved shirts do you own? Joseph-Marie Jacquard wants to know (and King Cnut has metaphorical clogs to sell to the Luddites).
This isn't about fatalism or even pessimism. The tide coming in isn't good or bad. It's more like the refrain from Game of Thrones: Winter is coming. You prepare for it. Your time might be better served finding shelter and warm clothing rather than engaging in a futile attempt to prevent it.
How come there even is anything left to solve for LLMs?
It’s just really not comparable.
And I don't see how most people are divided in two groups or appear to be.
Either it's total shit, or it's the holy cup of truth, here to solve all our problems.
It's neither. It's a tool. Like a shovel, it's good at something. And like a shovel it's bad at other things. E.g. I wouldn't use a shovel to hammer in a nail.
LLMs will NEVER become true AGI. But do they need to? No, or course not!
My biggest problem with LLMs isn't the shit code they produce from time to time, as I am paid to resolve messes, it's the environmental impact of MINDLESSLY using one.
But whatever. People like cults and anti-cults are cults too.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44208831. Quoting myself (sorry):
> For me, one of the Beneficiaries, the hype seems totally warranted. The capability is there, the possibilities are enormous, pace of advancement is staggering, and achieving them is realistic. If it takes a few years longer than the Investor group thinks - that's fine with us; it's only a problem for them.
Do the calculations for how much LLM use is required to equal one hamburger worth of CO2 — or the CO2 of commuting to work in a car.
If my daily LLM environmental impact is comparable to my lunch or going to work, it’s really hard to fault, IMO. They aren’t building data centers in the rainforest.
Of course I don't go around posting everything I am concerned about when we are talking about a specific topic.
You're aware tho, that because of the AI hype sustainability programs were cut at all major tech firms?
If carbon credits were viewed as valid, I’m pretty sure they would have kept the programs.
> LLMs will NEVER become true AGI. But do they need to? No, or course not!
Everyone disagrees about the meaning of each of the three letters of the initialism "AGI", and also disagree about the compound whole and often argue it means something different than the simple meaning of those words separately.
Even on this website, "AGI" means anything from "InstructGPT" (the precursor to ChatGPT) to "Biblical God" — or, even worse than "God" given this is a tech forum, "can solve provably impossible task such as the halting problem".
A true AGI is basically Skynet or the Basilisk ;-)
Isn't much of that environmental impact currently from the training of the model rather than the usage? Something you could arguably one day just stop doing if you're satisfied with the progress on that front (People won't be any time soon admittedly)
I'm no expert on this front. It's a genuine question based on what i've heard and read.
Environmental impacts of GenAI/LLM ecosystem are highly overrated.
This chart is extremely damning: https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-o...
The industry consistently predicts people will do the task quicker with AI. The people who are doing the task predict they'll do it quicker if they can use AI. After doing the task with AI, they predict they did it quicker because they used AI. People who did it without AI predict they could have done it quicker with AI. But they actually measured how long it takes. It turns out, they do it slower if they use AI. This is damning.
It's a dopamine machine. It makes you feel good, but with no reality behind it and no work to achieve it. It's no different in this regard from (some) hard drugs. A rat with a lever wired to the pleasure center in its brain keeps pressing that lever until it dies of starvation.
(Yes, it's very surprising that you can create this effect without putting chemicals or electrodes in your brain. Social media achieved it first, though.)
So in that sense we agree. Let's be like he Dutch. Let's realize the coming tide and build defenses against it.
That is a thing that humans can do if they want it enough.
No we don't. Quite the opposite. Several dams have been made into movable mechanic contraptions precisely to NOT stop the tide coming in.
A lot of the water management is living with the water, not fighting it. Shore replenishment and strengthening is done by dropping sand in strategic locations and letting the water take care of dumping it in the right spot. Before big dredgers, the tide was used to flush sand out of harbours using big flushing basins. Big canals have been dug for better shipping. Big and small ships sailed and still sail on the waters to trade with the world. A lot of our riches come from the sea and the rivers.
The water is a danger and a tool. It's not stopped, only redirected and often put to good use. Throughout Dutch history, those who worked with the water generally have done well. And similarly, some places really suffered after the water was redirected away from them. Fisher folk lost their livelihoods, cities lost access to trade, some land literally evaporated when it got too dry, a lot of land shrunk when water was removed, biodiversity dropped...
Anyway, if you want to use the Dutch waters as a metaphor for technological innovations, the lesson will not be that the obvious answer is to block it. The lesson will be to accept it, to use it, to gain riches through it: to live with it.
Please understand. We're not in a position where we have sophisticated infrastructure to carefully control AI development. We have nothing, and the waves are getting bigger every few months.
You're in a position where you're safe enough (after centuries of labor!) that you can decide to not block some amount of incoming water. That is not where we are at with AI. There is no dike.
I understand that you're afraid. I'm not. But that's not what I was responding to. I was just pointing out that your comparison to the Dutch does not bolster your argument, but instead supports the opposite view.
When you understand tides and local ecosystems and have flood level forecasting, you can choose to operate dikes in a way that allows tidal flow while blunting floods. However, we're currently in a position where in the analogy, we have no dike and people are arguing that dikes are impossible and anyway who's to say that the incoming flood won't be good for houses? In that situation, the first thing you need to do is get the incoming masses of water under control, and that's a thing that humans can do and it's the thing you did. (Unless I'm wrong?)
edit: Hang on, isn't Amsterdam below zero? How is that not blocking tidal flow effectively completely?
My point is just that tides are in the feasible range of human engineering, whether that's a good idea or not. Pragmatic management is not the same thing as unconditional surrender, which the other comment was advocating on basis of infeasibility, which is doubly wrong.
But let me offer you a false dichotomy for the purposes of argument:
1. You spend your efforts preventing the emergence of AI
2. You spend your efforts creating conditions for the harmonious co-existence of AI and humanity
It's your choice.
You are also completely moving the goal posts. My original comment was about the hubris of man to prevent processes that operate at a scale beyond his means. The processes that are driving forward the march towards AI are beyond your ability to stop. And now you are arguing (again, with no evidence) the relative difficulty of slowing it down (a much weaker claim compared to stopping it) vs. contributing to safe co-existence.
But in the interest of finding some common ground let me point out: attempting to slow it down is actually getting on board to my project (although, in a way I think is ineffective). It starts with accepting that it can't be prevented and choosing a way to contribute to safe coexistence by providing enough time to figure it out.
You know, I think you have no evidence for any of your claims of "impossibility" either. And I'd argue there's a ton of counterevidence where man, completely ignoring how impossible that's supposed to be, effects change on a global scale.
You're comparing two dissimilar things. On the one hand slowing it down (which contrary to your claim that I'm moving the goalpost, is at sufficient investment effectively equal to stopping it), on the other, "contributing" to safe co-existence, which is trivially achieved by literally doing anything. I'm telling you that if we merely "contribute" to safe co-existence, we all die. The standard, and it really is the standard in any other field, is proving safe coexistence to a reasonable standard. Which should hopefully make clear where the difficulty lies: we have nothing. Even with all the interpretability research, and I'm not slagging interpretability, this field is in its absolute infancy.
"It can't be prevented" simply erases the most important distinction: if we get ASI tomorrow, we're in a fundamentally different position than if we get ASI in 50 years after a heroic global effort to work out safety, interpretability, guidance and morality.
I hear you. I believe you are wrong.
> it really is the standard in any other field, is proving safe coexistence to a reasonable standard
No it isn't. It often becomes the standard after the fact. But pretty much every invention by man didn't go through a committee. Can you provide some counter-examples? Did the Wright brothers prove flight was safe before they got on the first plane? Did the inventors of CRISPR technology "prove" it is safe? Or human cloning? Or nuclear fission? Your very argument rests on the mistakes humans made in the past and the out-sized consequences of making the same kinds of mistakes with AI. Your argument must be: we have to do things differently this time with AI because the stakes are higher.
These are old and boring arguments. I've been watching the less wrong space since it was overcoming bias (and frankly, from before). I've heard all of the arguments they have to make.
But the content of this discussion was on inevitability and how to respond to it. The person I replied to suggested that it was a mistake to see the future as something that happens to us. It was a call to agency. I was pointing out that not all agency is equal, and hubris can lead us to actions that are not productive.
It is also the case that fear, just like hubris, can lead us to actions that aren't productive. But perhaps we should just move on from this discussion.
Flight did not have potentially uncontrollable consequences.
> human cloning
No uncontrollable consequences.
> Nuclear fission
To a reasonable standard, yes! I remind you that there was a concern of atmospheric ignition that was reasonably disproven before the first test.
> CRISPR technology
Tbh they should have, and I fully advocate this standard for any sort of live genomic research as well.
Also, just fwiw. I am not scared of AI. I'm not even particularly scared of dying in a global armageddon (as the song says, "we will all go together when we go", and tbh that's genuinely a relief). I just think, fairly dispassionately, that it's going to happen. You can't explain your disagreements with "my opponents are just emotionally affected."
> Your argument must be: we have to do things differently this time with AI because the stakes are higher.
I don't understand what you're saying here. That is in fact my argument. My whole entire point is just that it's not something beyond our means by any means- we have to do it, and we're capable of doing it, so we should do it.
> When he was at the height of his ascendancy, he ordered his chair to be placed on the sea-shore as the tide was coming in. Then he said to the rising tide, "You are subject to me, as the land on which I am sitting is mine, and no one has resisted my overlordship with impunity. I command you, therefore, not to rise on to my land, nor to presume to wet the clothing or limbs of your master." But the sea came up as usual, and disrespectfully drenched the king's feet and shins. So jumping back, the king cried, "Let all the world know that the power of kings is empty and worthless, and there is no king worthy of the name save Him by whose will heaven, earth and the sea obey eternal laws."
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut#The_story_of_Cnut_and_the...
edit As an aside, you might want to read Don Quixote [1]
Can you stop it?
Did luddites ever have a chance of stopping the industrial revolution?
It's easy to say what was inevitable when you are looking into the past. Much harder to predict what inevitable future awaits us.
You can simply spend so much time on meticulously documenting that "AI" (unfortunately!) does not work that it will be quietly abandoned.
But even if, that presupposes a kind of unity of opinion, committing the exact same sin the article we're discussing is complaining about. Many engineers believe that AI does, in fact, work, and will keep getting better - and will work towards the future you'd like to work against.
A Guatemalan or Indian can write code for my boss today...instead of me. Software engineers despite the cliff in employment and the like are still rather well paid and there's plenty of room to undercut and for people to disregard principles. If this is perceived to be an issue to them at all. If you talk to many irl... Well it is not in the slightest.
It's fair enough to say "you can change the future", but sometimes you can't. You don't have the resources, and often, the will.
The internet was the future, we saw it, some didn't. Cryptocurrencies are the future, some see it, some don't. And using AI is the future too.
Are LLMs the endpoint? Obviously not. But they'll keep getting better, marginally, until there's a breakthrough, or a change, and they'll advance further.
But they won't be going away.
Even if you don't think you can change something, you shouldn't be sure about that. If you care about the outcome, you try things also against the odds and also try to organize such efforts with others.
(I'm puzzled by poeple who don't see it that way but at the same time don't find VC and start-ups insanely weird...).