7 ms·

This does not make any sense. There's far more economic opportunity with AGI.

afavour 1y ago
But if it’s more than a few years out then investors will start getting upset. They want money and are short term minded.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
idle_zealot 1y ago
> There's far more economic opportunity with Is there? Creating AGI sounds like a great way to utterly upend every assumption that our economy and governments are built on. It would be incredibly destabilizing. That's not typically good for business. There's no telling who will profit once that genie is out of the bottle, or if profit will even continue to be a meaningful concept.
- xmprt 1y ago
  I hear this comment a lot and I don't get it. Let's say AGI exists but it costs $100/hr to operate and it has the intelligence of a good PhD student. Does that suddenly mean that the economy breaks down or will the goalposts shift to AGI being "economical" and that PhD level isn't good enough? I still haven't gotten a heard a clear definition of AGI which makes me think that it will break the world.
  - dsign 1y ago
    It won't break the world, but it's warranted that it will break the world of people doing labor and getting paid for it. And when you think of it, even being a mediocre (or even moronic) investor is practicing a form of labor, so not even capital ownership is safe in the long run. And yes, generational wealth is a thing but there are tides that slowly shift wealth from A to B (e.g. from USA to China). Have a machine smart enough with even a sliver of motivation (intrinsic or extrinsic) to get some wealth for itself, and just watch what happens...
  - fmbb 1y ago
    This is what Open AI themselves believe the risk is: > By "defeat," I don't mean "subtly manipulate us" or "make us less informed" or something like that - I mean a literal "defeat" in the sense that we could all be killed, enslaved or forcibly contained. Linked from https://openai.com/index/planning-for-agi-and-beyond/ https://openai.com/index/planning-for-agi-and-beyond/
eru 1y ago
Why not do both?

But if it’s more than a few years out then investors will start getting upset. They want money and are short term minded.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

idle_zealot 1y ago

> There's far more economic opportunity with Is there? Creating AGI sounds like a great way to utterly upend every assumption that our economy and governments are built on. It would be incredibly destabilizing. That's not typically good for business. There's no telling who will profit once that genie is out of the bottle, or if profit will even continue to be a meaningful concept.

xmprt 1y ago
I hear this comment a lot and I don't get it. Let's say AGI exists but it costs $100/hr to operate and it has the intelligence of a good PhD student. Does that suddenly mean that the economy breaks down or will the goalposts shift to AGI being "economical" and that PhD level isn't good enough? I still haven't gotten a heard a clear definition of AGI which makes me think that it will break the world.
- dsign 1y ago
  It won't break the world, but it's warranted that it will break the world of people doing labor and getting paid for it. And when you think of it, even being a mediocre (or even moronic) investor is practicing a form of labor, so not even capital ownership is safe in the long run. And yes, generational wealth is a thing but there are tides that slowly shift wealth from A to B (e.g. from USA to China). Have a machine smart enough with even a sliver of motivation (intrinsic or extrinsic) to get some wealth for itself, and just watch what happens...
- fmbb 1y ago
  This is what Open AI themselves believe the risk is: > By "defeat," I don't mean "subtly manipulate us" or "make us less informed" or something like that - I mean a literal "defeat" in the sense that we could all be killed, enslaved or forcibly contained. Linked from https://openai.com/index/planning-for-agi-and-beyond/ https://openai.com/index/planning-for-agi-and-beyond/

eru 1y ago

Why not do both?