The AI boom has turned the standard profit margin model on its head, according to Apollo Chief Economist Torsten Slok—and it’s making the industry’s growth unsustainable.
What it would look like is layoffs from a company without a change in output/productivity. Notably, we’re not at AGI yet, so I wouldn’t expect sci-fi levels of change.
There would necessarily be a lag time between layoffs and unchanged productivity. And even then, if we’re being fair, that’s not conclusive evidence of AI being useful; it could just be that they had more employees than they needed.
My point is more that I’m not sure we’d see an obvious sign that AI was changing the market yet.
Elon Musk is an idiot, and you’ve already noted that the market doesn’t track reality.
The paradigm shifting invention was the transformer (the T in GPT). If you’ll forgive a shitty analogy, it’s like someone invented a microscope and you’re asking why we don’t yet have insulin. Not having insulin doesn’t make the microscope useless.
As far as these things go, AI is improving at a breakneck speed-- hence why so many people in the field are begging for a pause in development. We don’t really understand why this technology works as well as if does, and that has a lot of people worried that we’re going to do something dangerous without understanding what we did.
When they invented the microscope, hey could instantly demonstrate its utility in it’s ability to observe previously invisibly tiny things.
I assure you that 400 some odd years ago, most people would not have grasped the utility in the microscope. Just like many people today don’t understand what the transformer has done for machine learning.
Again, you’re using 400+ years of hindsight to inform your conclusion. “Looking at small things” doesn’t immediately imply “unlocking the secrets of the universe”, it’s only after hundreds of years of building on that invention that you can easily point to that conclusion.
And admittedly the analogy was not great, I’m just trying to get across that you’re looking at the output of the invention and asking “is that it”? But we’ve only had this technology for a decade or so, and it’s only really been public facing for, what, 4 years?
These various technologies we refer to as “AI” are not yet at the point where they can replace any human at any task, but they can replace some humans at some tasks, and as far as the evidence shows, we can continue to improve it with more training and more compute. They are writing prose well enough to pass as humans, solving math problems we haven’t been able to solve for decades, writing medium complexity code in minutes instead of days-- the technology isn’t solving all the world’s problems and ushering in a post-scarcity utopia, but no one is claiming it is, today. Will it? I doubt it, but that’s more to do with capitalism corrupting everything it touches than anything else.
If you think “AI” is not useful, you’re probably considering a very narrowly defined type of “AI” in a very narrowly defined scenario where AI does not perform well.
Edit: I want to take a second to say that I’ve enjoyed this conversation with you. I can’t say that about many conversations on this topic. This isn’t me ending the conversation.
What it would look like is layoffs from a company without a change in output/productivity. Notably, we’re not at AGI yet, so I wouldn’t expect sci-fi levels of change.
deleted by creator
There would necessarily be a lag time between layoffs and unchanged productivity. And even then, if we’re being fair, that’s not conclusive evidence of AI being useful; it could just be that they had more employees than they needed.
My point is more that I’m not sure we’d see an obvious sign that AI was changing the market yet.
deleted by creator
Elon Musk is an idiot, and you’ve already noted that the market doesn’t track reality.
The paradigm shifting invention was the transformer (the T in GPT). If you’ll forgive a shitty analogy, it’s like someone invented a microscope and you’re asking why we don’t yet have insulin. Not having insulin doesn’t make the microscope useless.
As far as these things go, AI is improving at a breakneck speed-- hence why so many people in the field are begging for a pause in development. We don’t really understand why this technology works as well as if does, and that has a lot of people worried that we’re going to do something dangerous without understanding what we did.
deleted by creator
I assure you that 400 some odd years ago, most people would not have grasped the utility in the microscope. Just like many people today don’t understand what the transformer has done for machine learning.
deleted by creator
Again, you’re using 400+ years of hindsight to inform your conclusion. “Looking at small things” doesn’t immediately imply “unlocking the secrets of the universe”, it’s only after hundreds of years of building on that invention that you can easily point to that conclusion.
And admittedly the analogy was not great, I’m just trying to get across that you’re looking at the output of the invention and asking “is that it”? But we’ve only had this technology for a decade or so, and it’s only really been public facing for, what, 4 years?
These various technologies we refer to as “AI” are not yet at the point where they can replace any human at any task, but they can replace some humans at some tasks, and as far as the evidence shows, we can continue to improve it with more training and more compute. They are writing prose well enough to pass as humans, solving math problems we haven’t been able to solve for decades, writing medium complexity code in minutes instead of days-- the technology isn’t solving all the world’s problems and ushering in a post-scarcity utopia, but no one is claiming it is, today. Will it? I doubt it, but that’s more to do with capitalism corrupting everything it touches than anything else.
If you think “AI” is not useful, you’re probably considering a very narrowly defined type of “AI” in a very narrowly defined scenario where AI does not perform well.
Edit: I want to take a second to say that I’ve enjoyed this conversation with you. I can’t say that about many conversations on this topic. This isn’t me ending the conversation.