upvote

points

by ETH_start1 days ago |
comments
upvoteby lesam1 days ago|
next
[-]
Assuming your labour contribution to these agents is 'minimal':

Why would you own them, instead of some well capitalized billionaire?

To the extent that you do have capital, why do you assume that your 'minimal direction and guidance' would outcompete a full time specialist working for that billionaire?

reply
upvoteby ETH_start1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Assuming agent costs keep declining exponentially as they have over the last three years, why would everyone not own some agents? It's not like the number of agents is capped and the billionaires hoard all of them. I imagine it would be more like smartphones, where there were only 50 million smartphones after the iPhone was first released in 2007 and now there are something like three billion. They become more accessible and plentiful over time. Same thing should apply to agents.

And in this world of abundant agents, what advantage does the billionaire have exactly over the non-billionaire? Their employees are less motivated than owner-operators, and they no longer have the scale advantage that large corporations used to have. Each individual can effectively operate like a large corporation, because each individual can have their own large synthetic workforce at very low cost. The scarce resource here then becomes uniquely human insights and real motivation, which entrepreneurs are always going to have more of than employees.

reply
upvoteby stephenhuey1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
I'm hoping it's likely the powerful cannot monopolize agents. If open models are easy to obtain, and every homestead has solar and large batteries, everyone can routinely charge their robots like Seven of Nine plugging into her Borg alcove. As long as they have the right to repair them, and a monopoly can't fleece you with robot maintenance!
reply
upvoteby logicchains1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
It's basic economics; larger firms become progressively less efficient for the same reason that communist command economies are inefficient, because there's no internal price signals to guide resource allocation. So there's a natural cap on how big a firm can get (in information theoretic terms, there's a hard limit on the amount of information a centralized structure can process effectively).
reply
upvoteby torginus1 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
We live in a world with a severe housing crisis - not shortage, as there are usually enough units, people just can't afford them.

One would assume the difficulty of building housing has gone down with the general progress of technology - and if all else fails, you can just do what they did 50, 100 years ago where affordability was far less a struggle - people, who had less income in real terms spent proportionally less on it.

So did society devolve that an unit of industrial output has become more expensive? Or did money and resources just go into a parallel 'rich people economy', that has created a constant drain on the resources of average people?

reply
upvoteby ETH_start1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Housing is exceptionally vulnerable to capture because it is immobile. AI on the otherhand should see its cost continue to plummet due to competition. Per token costs have already fallen exponentially over the last three years.

I'm not sure if this addresses the point you're trying to make though. If not, please clarify your argument for me.

reply
upvoteby globular-toast1 days ago|
prev|
[-]
Until you can eat an agent it's all worthless.
reply