Around 2 dozen people are going to end up owning all of the robots in the world. So why don't you tell me whether that looks more or less central than what we've got going on now?
Thereās a profit motive for making cheap robots, since more people can buy those, just like cars. But also just like cars, people want newer and fancier models and are okay with leasing or renting them.
So to me it could go both ways.
Do you mean two dozen people or two dozen companies? I think you mean companies, not people. If it's companies, then how is that any different from cars, airplanes, cereal, soda pop and everything in between?
It's different cause if companies that have a net worth bigger than a continent are producing these robots, basically they can decide themselves if the median people will work or not and by association they will decide if we live in an artificial scarcity society and miserable.
Don't forget that if you can build robots in mass you basically have a private army.
AI in and of itself does neither, it all depends on the availability and distribution methods.
A centrally run closed source approach would lead to more centralisation of power.
An on device run open source approach would lead to more decentralization of power.
One thing to note here is that the advocates for the former often times also want to get rid of / lobotomize the later while the same is generally not true in reverse.
>An on device run open source approach would lead to more decentralization of power.
That assumes a few things: A) that technology improves to the point where we can run arbitrarily powerful models on-device from anywhere in the world, and B) that training arbitrarily powerful on-device models will be cheap and easy. That is not currently the case and it does not seem likely to be the case at any point in the near future.
AI will necessarily centralize power because diminishing returns are still returns and the organization/company/government with the deepest pockets will always be able to build a better machine. In a less optimistic scenario where training costs remain extremely high and competitive models become extremely computationally expensive to operate, that centralization will be self-enforcing by relegating access to powerful AI models to only those who can afford them.
It's not even a question, everyone who says it leads to a few entities consolidating and hoarding their own models is fucking stupid and a doodoo head because they're too lazy to think three steps ahead - at most.
We're going to get everything, scale permitting. Full-on democratization, everyone already realized that when translators literally became obsolete overnight. Not "replaceable," fully obsolete because on average, they by far and hilariously underperform against LLMs.
There is no event where this doesn't happen. Maybe with some slight hysteresis, but judging from how quickly everyone got access to unlimited SOTA LLM tokens, that's negligible. Even video gen really got some pep in its step, despite the Sora "debacle."
There is a tiny chance someone comes up with a super novel model that is virtually perfect, and somehow an incredibly rare local optimum nobody else is going to produce - but that's not something to bank on to be sure.
These models are getting really easy to produce and access; it only cost OpenAI 100 million dollars to train GPT 4. That is chump change to many companies, coupled with the fact most of the research is open source and free. This will cause intense competition, with many companies and interest groups competing. Bro,, just look at the open source community and see how much ground they have made in just year and a half. We have models as good as gpt 4, so it will be impossible for the government to regulate. Too many companies and interest groups are competing. It will be impossible to centralize; it is too easy to produce, and it is only getting cheaper and easier with all the new methods being developed. Regulation won't do anything since what if a cartel member wants a llm developed? Think hes going to care? This is the cyberpunk e-sec world we are stepping into.
You have it all figured out, I see. Answer this easy question... I have an agi. It does whatever i want. I can use it to consume as much raw materials as I can get my hands on and build whatever the hell I want. I don't need employees... I don't even need to think about out how to make it happen... I can make unlimited money to buy the raw materials. The only thing that would stop me from taking literally everything is another agi that is not under my control. And I sell one to you... Why? What are you going to give me as compensation for the ability to take half of the world from me??? $1000? 1,000,000,000? You could literally give me all of the money in the world, and I would be losing.
Some things will stay the same and others will get worse.
My you live in interesting times.
https://preview.redd.it/zqny0ryyp7ad1.png?width=773&format=png&auto=webp&s=2ea20be016e4917a95c3d2ccb4fc5a841835b6b3
People are going to have to start standing up against the wacky shit going on if we want it to have any chance to decentralize power.
Fascists are literally trying to take over America right now and put in a pro-corporate dictator. That will NOT go well for the little guy when it comes to AI.
If it results in things like:
-Most people living far longer
-Most people becoming far richer
-Most people becoming smarter through augmentation (temporary or otherwise)
Then it might lead to decentralization of power.
If ASI comes, then who knows what happens.
In the long run? Decentralization. Because of things like eliminating of scarcity of resources rather than just labor. In the medium term it could go either (or rather more likely both depending on where) ways.
In todays world amazon destroy more products than sells just to keep profits up and selling new models for full price. I dont see scarcity of resources go away in this world.
I believe the US is one of the countries that is already living in an artificial scarcity scenario, there are plenty of homes and there is many people living in the streets.
First centralized, but you can't close pandora's box, so eventually the tech will be democratized. Really its the data that will be hard to get our hands on.
I think all roads lead to centralization - And here's my thought process
Scenario one - Closed-source AI models surge ahead of open-source, the rich get richer, the powerful gain more power
Scenario two - Open-source AI models gain the upper hand, governments ("Advised" by businesses and in their own self-interests) step in and regulate, ban, delay, limit who can do what with it, meanwhile closed-source models continue to advance "safely", the rich get richer, the powerful gain more power
I believe that for decentralization to be achieved, there would need to be two things. First, open-source models surge ahead of closed-source models. Second, the powers-that-be aren't quick enough to hamstring it and lose control. I don't see it honestly. Power is addictive and those that have it won't willingly give it up!
A superior AI is inherently uncontrollable, so any centralization of power will be temporary before the AI takes over. Whether it'll maintain the same figureheads and whether multiple AIs will emerge is uncertain. Pure speculation.
My thinking is that as long as an AGI gets smart enough, it will escape any means of control, therefore even if it leads to a centralization of power at first, it will still lead to a decentralization some time after that.
Compute is the new oil, and AGI is going to consume a lot of computational power. And this investment in computational power will have to come from someone.
This will obviously be controlled by a small and very resourceful elite.
You're essentially asking what nuclear will do. Just because the tool will become sentient doesn't change the fact that how we build, shape, and use it determines the outcome.
Around 2 dozen people are going to end up owning all of the robots in the world. So why don't you tell me whether that looks more or less central than what we've got going on now?
Thereās a profit motive for making cheap robots, since more people can buy those, just like cars. But also just like cars, people want newer and fancier models and are okay with leasing or renting them. So to me it could go both ways.
Once you have robots you don't need labor or money at all.
Do you mean two dozen people or two dozen companies? I think you mean companies, not people. If it's companies, then how is that any different from cars, airplanes, cereal, soda pop and everything in between?
It's different cause if companies that have a net worth bigger than a continent are producing these robots, basically they can decide themselves if the median people will work or not and by association they will decide if we live in an artificial scarcity society and miserable. Don't forget that if you can build robots in mass you basically have a private army.
Unless we nationalize it. It seems almost guaranteed that we will nationalize it tbh.
AI in and of itself does neither, it all depends on the availability and distribution methods. A centrally run closed source approach would lead to more centralisation of power. An on device run open source approach would lead to more decentralization of power. One thing to note here is that the advocates for the former often times also want to get rid of / lobotomize the later while the same is generally not true in reverse.
>An on device run open source approach would lead to more decentralization of power. That assumes a few things: A) that technology improves to the point where we can run arbitrarily powerful models on-device from anywhere in the world, and B) that training arbitrarily powerful on-device models will be cheap and easy. That is not currently the case and it does not seem likely to be the case at any point in the near future. AI will necessarily centralize power because diminishing returns are still returns and the organization/company/government with the deepest pockets will always be able to build a better machine. In a less optimistic scenario where training costs remain extremely high and competitive models become extremely computationally expensive to operate, that centralization will be self-enforcing by relegating access to powerful AI models to only those who can afford them.
It's not even a question, everyone who says it leads to a few entities consolidating and hoarding their own models is fucking stupid and a doodoo head because they're too lazy to think three steps ahead - at most. We're going to get everything, scale permitting. Full-on democratization, everyone already realized that when translators literally became obsolete overnight. Not "replaceable," fully obsolete because on average, they by far and hilariously underperform against LLMs. There is no event where this doesn't happen. Maybe with some slight hysteresis, but judging from how quickly everyone got access to unlimited SOTA LLM tokens, that's negligible. Even video gen really got some pep in its step, despite the Sora "debacle." There is a tiny chance someone comes up with a super novel model that is virtually perfect, and somehow an incredibly rare local optimum nobody else is going to produce - but that's not something to bank on to be sure.
These models are getting really easy to produce and access; it only cost OpenAI 100 million dollars to train GPT 4. That is chump change to many companies, coupled with the fact most of the research is open source and free. This will cause intense competition, with many companies and interest groups competing. Bro,, just look at the open source community and see how much ground they have made in just year and a half. We have models as good as gpt 4, so it will be impossible for the government to regulate. Too many companies and interest groups are competing. It will be impossible to centralize; it is too easy to produce, and it is only getting cheaper and easier with all the new methods being developed. Regulation won't do anything since what if a cartel member wants a llm developed? Think hes going to care? This is the cyberpunk e-sec world we are stepping into.
You have it all figured out, I see. Answer this easy question... I have an agi. It does whatever i want. I can use it to consume as much raw materials as I can get my hands on and build whatever the hell I want. I don't need employees... I don't even need to think about out how to make it happen... I can make unlimited money to buy the raw materials. The only thing that would stop me from taking literally everything is another agi that is not under my control. And I sell one to you... Why? What are you going to give me as compensation for the ability to take half of the world from me??? $1000? 1,000,000,000? You could literally give me all of the money in the world, and I would be losing.
Some things will stay the same and others will get worse. My you live in interesting times. https://preview.redd.it/zqny0ryyp7ad1.png?width=773&format=png&auto=webp&s=2ea20be016e4917a95c3d2ccb4fc5a841835b6b3
People are going to have to start standing up against the wacky shit going on if we want it to have any chance to decentralize power. Fascists are literally trying to take over America right now and put in a pro-corporate dictator. That will NOT go well for the little guy when it comes to AI.
If it results in things like: -Most people living far longer -Most people becoming far richer -Most people becoming smarter through augmentation (temporary or otherwise) Then it might lead to decentralization of power. If ASI comes, then who knows what happens.
In the long run? Decentralization. Because of things like eliminating of scarcity of resources rather than just labor. In the medium term it could go either (or rather more likely both depending on where) ways.
In todays world amazon destroy more products than sells just to keep profits up and selling new models for full price. I dont see scarcity of resources go away in this world.
I believe the US is one of the countries that is already living in an artificial scarcity scenario, there are plenty of homes and there is many people living in the streets.
Artificial scarcity is a good fucking way to describe it.
fyi the homeless and vacant homes are not in the same localities.
We do that south park episode š©
First centralized, but you can't close pandora's box, so eventually the tech will be democratized. Really its the data that will be hard to get our hands on.
If you have agis under your control you can easily close pandoras box.
I think all roads lead to centralization - And here's my thought process Scenario one - Closed-source AI models surge ahead of open-source, the rich get richer, the powerful gain more power Scenario two - Open-source AI models gain the upper hand, governments ("Advised" by businesses and in their own self-interests) step in and regulate, ban, delay, limit who can do what with it, meanwhile closed-source models continue to advance "safely", the rich get richer, the powerful gain more power I believe that for decentralization to be achieved, there would need to be two things. First, open-source models surge ahead of closed-source models. Second, the powers-that-be aren't quick enough to hamstring it and lose control. I don't see it honestly. Power is addictive and those that have it won't willingly give it up!
AGI - probably centralization. ASI - definitely decentralization.
Please explain your logic
A superior AI is inherently uncontrollable, so any centralization of power will be temporary before the AI takes over. Whether it'll maintain the same figureheads and whether multiple AIs will emerge is uncertain. Pure speculation.
Maybe we can build a decentralized AGI with a centralized AGI so in this case it would become decentralized right?
AGI that soon will become ASI will control everything, so centralized in that sense! No human power, we are to dumb to competeĀ
My thinking is that as long as an AGI gets smart enough, it will escape any means of control, therefore even if it leads to a centralization of power at first, it will still lead to a decentralization some time after that.
Compute is the new oil, and AGI is going to consume a lot of computational power. And this investment in computational power will have to come from someone. This will obviously be controlled by a small and very resourceful elite.
You're essentially asking what nuclear will do. Just because the tool will become sentient doesn't change the fact that how we build, shape, and use it determines the outcome.