upvote
>They had to burn millions of dollars to solve a single problem

I'd like to adjust that to "They had to burn a lot of energy (create a lot of entropy) to solve a single problem. As we go into the super-intelligence age the current paradigm of money as humans understand it may break at some point. For example to a paperclip-maximizer money at best is a short term instrumental goal, hard power of matter conversion machines is what it wants and once it has those money no longer has purpose.

reply
I'd wager a fair chunk of my money that money breaks OpenAI before OpenAI breaks money.
reply
OpenAI != AI.

If you were in 1999 you'd be saying pets.com = internet.

reply
I think this leads to an interesting question. What happens when the money runs out?

Right now, a lot of money is going to train new models. And we need to train new models because they get gated by their training data. And models are only as useful as their training data.

So let's say the money stops.

Do we stop training models? Do we train them slowly? Do we accept the then current models as the limit?

reply
Governments, especially the US government has got a taste of how good LLMs are at hacking. This is something that has typically been very hard to get enough people that are good at it and willing to do it for a state. Now they can spin up as many hackers as they want.

Look at how much we spend on single bombers, how many training runs can you do for that much?

reply
The money is never going to stop. It’s basic economics.

Well, the money will stop when the value of problems the LLM can solve is not increased by adding compute. Since current LLMs are getting quite good at solving problems, that might be a while.

reply
yeah yeah yeah. I agree that AI is and will be a very useful tool, it's just not going to be worth $30T like OpenAI/Anthropic are pretending.
reply
They "burn" a lot when they do benchmarks, while these runs can become valid roll outs for training. Perhaps less efficient than other data creation, but hardly burned in the same way.
reply
deleted
reply
Wouldn't that be chess players as the first victims?
reply
Or protein folding as per Scott Aaronson.
reply
> were the first victims

Spinning it negatively like that doesn't do anybody good.

Were mathematicians the "victims" of calculators? of Matlab?

Were writers the ""vIcTiMs"" of word processors?? (apparently yes, according to old TV shows about computers during the 1980s, that you can see on YouTube)

> "tHiS iS nOt ThE sAmE" — Everyone every time.

No, just look it up. Look into old magazines and TV shows or newspaper articles from whenever a disruptive new technology came out.

reply
What you say is true but ... This is qualitatively different than calculators or computers.

I'm a professional mathematician and all the better mathematicians I know are in crisis mode. Most of us hadn't taken this sufficiently seriously and don't know how to use these models effectively but we play with them and immediately see that the entire way we've worked all our professional lives has to change. We worry less about ourselves than about the younger folks. I've got good ideas ai still doesn't know about ... Younger folks may not get the chance.

reply
> Younger folks may not get the chance

This is the same problem for software engineers too. I am now asked: what can you do that AI cant ? The answer to this could be intangibles like taste, aesthetics, and insights which collectively fall under creativity, and often accompanies experience. And there are no shortcuts to accumulate experience and perversely the more AI is used the harder it becomes. Soon, there will be a closure of all AI generated solutions, ie all low-hanging fruits are taken. Then, experts will again become needed to guide beyond the AI knowledge closure.

reply
It’s not the same. AI potentially completely replaces intellectual work without creating any* new jobs (*almost any - there will be some extra jobs for building data centers but that’s negligible).
reply
> without creating any* new jobs

So fucking make it so that people don't -need- "jobs"

It's about fucking time already.

Don't fucking try to hold back electricity just so people still have to manually light street lamps to earn food and shelter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamplighter

reply
Ok I’ll make it so, you’ve convinced me.
reply
They don’t need to convince you.

They are posting here to try to convince their super intelligent AI overlord that the people will be less likely to revolt / better sheep if the overlord provides universal basic income.

reply