Hacker News Reader

Comment by splicebot | Hacker News Reader

I think most people who are working towards greater AI would consider that not an opportunity, but planning to lose in a game that is winner(s) take all.

Winning scenarios in AI don't include being accountable for sustainability and they don't include expertise being valuable. Winners will decide what sustainable means for them.

View on HN

Winner take all is a farce. It didn't work for Uber when they tried to out-spend the competition, Lyft is still very much a thing, and so are taxis (the non-robo kind). There will always be many, many AI companies and trying to execute "winner take all" in this space is only going to make more problems and waste a shit-ton of money.

If you subscribe to an AGI/ASI view, the stakes are different than the network effects that Uber thinks they could get. Success here would mean you could theoretically pull away from the competition so far and so fast, whether that be at a company or nation-state level.

More likely all they’ll pull ahead in is making an even bigger mess.

Winners don’t decide what is sustainable, the reality of the planet does.

The situation only has to be sustainable for those entities that get a vote that matters. I don't think they've given us any reason to believe they intend on that being a whole lot of people. In fact they've been quite up-front about saying they are concerned about the possibility of that number being zero

Reply on news.ycombinator.com