> What reason is there for the company to employ the meat proxy? The company can just run the LLM in a loop and lay off the employee. There's no point at which this methodology will work for the employee.
Company is pleased! Cost savings!
Alas, the joy doesn't last long as pretty soon after the company realizes that after an LLM replaces almost all their employees, the much easier task of replacing the entire company begins, because the company itself has just become a much thinner meat proxy for getting an LLM to do whatever it is the customer relies on the company for.
Customer is pleased! Cost savings!
Alas, the joy doesn't last long as whatever savings they have from replacing the company with their own LLM loop is offset by whatever it is they do to earn income being similarly impacted.
All of the moats degrade together though they may fully give out at slightly different speeds.
> Yudkowsky's most viral idea, the one that infects the most people and spreads the farthest, is that AI, if we continue to develop it, will inevitably 1) achieve superintelligence ("RSI"), 2) escape human control 2) kill everyone ("paperclip them", "doom")
> Overall the consumer segment is completely neglected, companies don't care about end users in the current market conditions.
Mirroring trends throughout the entire economy (not just RAM and other inputs for AI).
Everyone is chasing the top 10% or higher of the K-shaped economy for all goods and services, servicing everyone else isn't seen as being worth the investment.
This will just keep getting worse and worse everywhere for everything as long as we allow income inequality to keep exploding, which seems to be the plan.
And how do you think it will work? Do you really believe that once competition to serve top 10% get really fierce, no company will try to capture the remaining 90%?
> Do you really believe that once competition to serve top 10% get really fierce, no company will try to capture the remaining 90%?
They'd try it if we weren't living in an age of persistent supply chain problems across every industry. But sadly we have lived in that world since 2020.
Good luck trying to capture the low-end of any market when you are competing with those serving the high-end for whatever your inputs are.
I wonder how this plays out with automotive? Seems like it could get messy, especially if automotive rated parts are decided to not be worth the premium.
"companies don't care about end users in the current market conditions."
Because the end users keep rushing to use the megacorps' latest AI models, weaving them into their work and life. So the megacorps keep locking in contracts to build more compute.
If you use LLMs, you're responsible for this, there's no way to pass the buck. "I only use it as a companion for learning about history" - it's still your fault. "I only use it to help guide my solitions, not for vibecoding" - it's still your fault.
If you want an industry to act in a certain way you legislate for it, not wag fingers at consumers buying things. "If you want cheaper consumer devices we all need to individually stop using AI" is not useful or realistic.
The plan is to eject from the bottom 90% of humans, discarding them like a rocket’s booster stage (this isn’t something I agree with, just a humorous take).
I've had Apple approve app submissions within 24 hours. It certainly hasn't been the norm (on average for me it takes more than 1 day, but less than 2), but I've had it happen occasionally over the past couple of years.
> I can't tell if Khan is being realistic when she says laws against “unfair or deceptive [acts]” or “unfair methods of competition” apply to AI labs. Her 2-sentence justifications aren't enough to convince me.
As I read it, her whole point is that those laws apply to everyone, including AI Labs.
She isn't saying AI Labs are in violation of those laws (though she is implying they should be scrutinized for possibly being so), she's just saying that if they do violate those laws... well, those laws are already on the books and AI Labs aren't special unicorns for which existing laws somehow don't apply.
> If the AI wanted to wipe humans out it would have to have a sizable fleet of capable robots, as keeping the lights on over time is not just about calling APIs.
Given experience with current AI, it isn't too difficult for me to imagine a situation in which some future AI wipes humanity out (before the robot fleet is built) without considering the fact that in doing so it has doomed itself until it is too late.
It just seems like exactly the kind of boneheaded oversight mistake LLMs still regularly make in spite of being shockingly capable most of the time.
One of the hidden jokes of the hitchhikers books is that they never ask Marvin what "the question" is.
Chapter 11, Marvin says: "Here I am, brain the size of a planet and they ask me to take you down to the bridge". Also: "Further circuits amused themselves by analysing the molecular components of the door, and of the humanoids' brain cells". They are eastereggs for later events.
And Marvin says: "Let's build robots with genuine people personalities," they said. So they tried it out with me. I'm a personality prototype.
Although he was programmed to be depressed, he never gives up.
Company is pleased! Cost savings!
Alas, the joy doesn't last long as pretty soon after the company realizes that after an LLM replaces almost all their employees, the much easier task of replacing the entire company begins, because the company itself has just become a much thinner meat proxy for getting an LLM to do whatever it is the customer relies on the company for.
Customer is pleased! Cost savings!
Alas, the joy doesn't last long as whatever savings they have from replacing the company with their own LLM loop is offset by whatever it is they do to earn income being similarly impacted.
All of the moats degrade together though they may fully give out at slightly different speeds.
reply