Perfectly reasonable to think AI is transformative (ranging from the apocalyptic to utopian) but to question whether the American approach to monetizing AI is sustainable/feasible.
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Replies
5
@smithy what the US is doing is the same thing the US has always done, which is deliberately create a bubble to force innovation (at incredible cost), knowing that when the bubble inevitably pops there will be economic ruin but we'll still have the innovation afterwards.
Bonus: economic insiders win despite the ruin, because a bubble is a wealth-transfer from economic outsiders.
Bonus: economic insiders win despite the ruin, because a bubble is a wealth-transfer from economic outsiders.
@apropos It is surely driving innovation -- and yeah, if there is a calamitous pop, it can definitely work as an upward wealth transfer -- but I am not sure it is going to lead to world where American firms (or maybe even open Western firms) will be in the best position to competitively capitalize on it
@sun @apropos @smithy i saw a talk about that yesterday. the centos guy runs an AI lab now. talked about the ongoing problem of "open weights" are more of a flex so china can troll anthropic/openai since it doesn't come with the training code or the dataset.
(openwaldo is basically trying to curate an "ethical" dataset to train on, but the field is basically just billionaires pissing on each other and we can find some uses for the rain.)
(openwaldo is basically trying to curate an "ethical" dataset to train on, but the field is basically just billionaires pissing on each other and we can find some uses for the rain.)
@icedquinn @apropos @smithy yeah thats my theory. its easy to realize if you're not fooled into thinking china is just altruistic