9 ms·

I would love more time and money put into real-world problems by these companies. Climate, food insecurity, pollution, technology for convenience and/or to help

I would love more time and money put into real-world problems by these companies. Climate, food insecurity, pollution, technology for convenience and/or to help people have a higher quality of life. I'm sure they must do some of this type of work, right?

braneloop 2mo ago
Yes, but all of those are orders of magnitude harder than math.
- amazingamazing 2mo ago
  They are political problems, a computer could never solve them.
  - adroitboss 2mo ago
    Tell that to game theory.
  - throwaway198846 2mo ago
    A computer could solve them by creating the right technological ,social, rhetorical and economical solutions but that would lots of money anyway
    - amazingamazing 2mo ago
      We already know the solutions
- christofosho 2mo ago
  I suppose it depends on which types of problems you're targeting. There is a lot of physical science, and theoretical science, that has gaps because there aren't enough people working on tooling to assist in things like calculation, generation, simulation, etc. I agree, some of the problems are more difficult. I don't think that's the case for all of them. And, besides, these companies could be demonstrating how to approach problems and where their users could spend tokens to help with these problems. Should not these companies try to work on these problems _because_ they are difficult?
adroitboss 2mo ago
What's stopping the non-profits that exist today from just putting more money into tokens to get the solutions they want?
- christofosho 2mo ago
  I'm not sure if this is meant to be rhetorical. If it isn't: money and manpower. The LLM companies have the money, they have the manpower, and so they could likely spare to target some of the problems they are also helping cause.
solenoid0937 2mo ago
Almost like superintelligence solves these problems...
beering 2mo ago
Solving math problems doesn’t require the cooperation of rival factions.
- christofosho 2mo ago
  It's a tad petty, no? In the end, the contribution to a healthier society leads to more for the companies contributing.
  - AngryData 2mo ago
    Sure but the people who tend to get into leadership positions are people that are primarily concerned with personal wealth and gain in the short term. It's the prisoner dilemma except with more players that all assume everybody else is going to screw them over too. Because there are basically zero personal downsides to being the one to screw everyone else over.
slashdave 2mo ago
Seriously? We already know how to solve all of these issues. What we lack is collective political will.
- globular-toast 2mo ago
  We only know how to do it by means of considerable sacrifice. That's why nobody wants to do it. Solving the issue would be doing it without sacrifice or somehow getting us to do it regardless.
  - slashdave 2mo ago
    > We only know how to do it by means of considerable sacrifice Little sacrifice actually > Solving the issue would be doing it without sacrifice So... you are expecting magic? LLMs cannot create resources out of thin air.
- christofosho 2mo ago
  There is boundless technology we have not yet discovered. I think that we understand we have problems. I don't believe we actually know how to solve them all. And yeah, the lack of collective political will sucks. It would be naïve, however, to think that there is no value in ensuring longevity in our current and future infrastructure. And improving it to sustain the population giving these companies their value is an obvious win.
  - slashdave 2mo ago
    This SV mentality that technology can solve all problems is rather tiring, really.
miltonlost 2mo ago
We know how to solve food insecurity (in 1st world countries). We have plenty of food. Capitalism requires though throwing out food that can't be sold because billionaires find giving away things anathemic to their worldview. Get rid of billionaire sociopaths.
paxys 2mo ago
None of these problems need technology to solve. Step 1 is trying to get different groups of people to cooperate with each other. Good luck with that.
zquzra 2mo ago
This is something I have been thinking about for quite a while. I readily embrace the advances AI may bring to mathematics and the hard sciences, but those advances were largely expected even predictable. What I had hoped for was something more ambitious: using AI as an arbiter in economic, political, and social debates, one capable of weighing evidence, exposing trade-offs, and helping us make decisions that produce better outcomes over the medium and long term, even when those decisions conflict with powerful private interests. I suspect, however, that this is not a particularly urgent goal for the people funding and directing these systems, many of whom live far removed from scarcity and its consequences.
samatman 2mo ago
Not really. They're an AI company: they develop AI and sell it. There's some room for pulling off flashy marketing stunts, but not all that much. This is division of labor, and it's a good thing. I'm sure OpenAI employees, who are very well paid, donate some money from their salaries to others working on the areas you're citing: probably more than you think, I say that from having attended some EA parties back in the day. But that isn't my point: my point is that a company which makes brushless motors should put most of its time and money into solving the "make and sell brushless motors" problem, and if they or their investors feel like they need to do more for the world, give money to the people who have the time and ability to do things about that. There are a lot of quality-of-life improvements which need brushless motors. Next question is how useful their product (OpenAI, I mean) is to more focused do-good-in-the-world professionals. I'm sure that varies quite a bit. For getting the homeless off the street? I conjecture, not very useful. For 'complete the transition off fossil fuels'? Extremely useful, no one in that field knows how to do their job without AI in summer 2026. I'm certain of this.

braneloop 2mo ago

Yes, but all of those are orders of magnitude harder than math.

amazingamazing 2mo ago
They are political problems, a computer could never solve them.
- adroitboss 2mo ago
  Tell that to game theory.
- throwaway198846 2mo ago
  A computer could solve them by creating the right technological ,social, rhetorical and economical solutions but that would lots of money anyway
  - amazingamazing 2mo ago
    We already know the solutions
christofosho 2mo ago
I suppose it depends on which types of problems you're targeting. There is a lot of physical science, and theoretical science, that has gaps because there aren't enough people working on tooling to assist in things like calculation, generation, simulation, etc. I agree, some of the problems are more difficult. I don't think that's the case for all of them. And, besides, these companies could be demonstrating how to approach problems and where their users could spend tokens to help with these problems. Should not these companies try to work on these problems _because_ they are difficult?

adroitboss 2mo ago

What's stopping the non-profits that exist today from just putting more money into tokens to get the solutions they want?

christofosho 2mo ago
I'm not sure if this is meant to be rhetorical. If it isn't: money and manpower. The LLM companies have the money, they have the manpower, and so they could likely spare to target some of the problems they are also helping cause.

solenoid0937 2mo ago

Almost like superintelligence solves these problems...

beering 2mo ago

Solving math problems doesn’t require the cooperation of rival factions.

christofosho 2mo ago
It's a tad petty, no? In the end, the contribution to a healthier society leads to more for the companies contributing.
- AngryData 2mo ago
  Sure but the people who tend to get into leadership positions are people that are primarily concerned with personal wealth and gain in the short term. It's the prisoner dilemma except with more players that all assume everybody else is going to screw them over too. Because there are basically zero personal downsides to being the one to screw everyone else over.

slashdave 2mo ago

Seriously? We already know how to solve all of these issues. What we lack is collective political will.

globular-toast 2mo ago
We only know how to do it by means of considerable sacrifice. That's why nobody wants to do it. Solving the issue would be doing it without sacrifice or somehow getting us to do it regardless.
- slashdave 2mo ago
  > We only know how to do it by means of considerable sacrifice Little sacrifice actually > Solving the issue would be doing it without sacrifice So... you are expecting magic? LLMs cannot create resources out of thin air.
christofosho 2mo ago
There is boundless technology we have not yet discovered. I think that we understand we have problems. I don't believe we actually know how to solve them all. And yeah, the lack of collective political will sucks. It would be naïve, however, to think that there is no value in ensuring longevity in our current and future infrastructure. And improving it to sustain the population giving these companies their value is an obvious win.
- slashdave 2mo ago
  This SV mentality that technology can solve all problems is rather tiring, really.

miltonlost 2mo ago

We know how to solve food insecurity (in 1st world countries). We have plenty of food. Capitalism requires though throwing out food that can't be sold because billionaires find giving away things anathemic to their worldview. Get rid of billionaire sociopaths.

paxys 2mo ago

None of these problems need technology to solve. Step 1 is trying to get different groups of people to cooperate with each other. Good luck with that.

zquzra 2mo ago

This is something I have been thinking about for quite a while. I readily embrace the advances AI may bring to mathematics and the hard sciences, but those advances were largely expected even predictable. What I had hoped for was something more ambitious: using AI as an arbiter in economic, political, and social debates, one capable of weighing evidence, exposing trade-offs, and helping us make decisions that produce better outcomes over the medium and long term, even when those decisions conflict with powerful private interests. I suspect, however, that this is not a particularly urgent goal for the people funding and directing these systems, many of whom live far removed from scarcity and its consequences.

samatman 2mo ago

Not really. They're an AI company: they develop AI and sell it. There's some room for pulling off flashy marketing stunts, but not all that much. This is division of labor, and it's a good thing. I'm sure OpenAI employees, who are very well paid, donate some money from their salaries to others working on the areas you're citing: probably more than you think, I say that from having attended some EA parties back in the day. But that isn't my point: my point is that a company which makes brushless motors should put most of its time and money into solving the "make and sell brushless motors" problem, and if they or their investors feel like they need to do more for the world, give money to the people who have the time and ability to do things about that. There are a lot of quality-of-life improvements which need brushless motors. Next question is how useful their product (OpenAI, I mean) is to more focused do-good-in-the-world professionals. I'm sure that varies quite a bit. For getting the homeless off the street? I conjecture, not very useful. For 'complete the transition off fossil fuels'? Extremely useful, no one in that field knows how to do their job without AI in summer 2026. I'm certain of this.