No idea. He’s probably just talking about the production of people with such education. That said, the field of AI R&D is enormous. There are so many opportunities for productivity improvements in healthcare, manufacturing, farming, chemicals, etc. The more AI-trained specialists you got, the more of those you can attempt. If a country has a goal of increasing economic productivity which doesn’t always jive with the free market economy.
There are so many opportunities for productivity improvements in healthcare, manufacturing, farming, chemicals, etc.
That’s definitely true. There is a lot of potential here. That being said, like with all tech, it’s about the people that apply it.
The more AI-trained specialists you got, the more of those you can attempt.
Not sure I believe this is true in all cases. It is not too unreasonable that there is a decrease in marginal returns on “AI-trained specialists” as the number goes up.
And it is likely that a large number of said “AI-trained specialists” are probably looking to cash in while this option is available.
I am a regular user of a variety of AI/ML tech (not only LLMs, although I do use them a lot in a relatively cautious manner), so I am not really an “AI skeptic”.
I am skeptic of the individuals involved in the AI/ML industry because I know what money can do to people. Not to mention claims/polemics about “millions of AI specialists working diligently to improve the world” have an almost Lenin/Mao-style feel to it.
Some people in this industry might have a measure of idealism, but they are likely a small minority. Most are probably just conformists and just doing whatever, but also not necessarily opposed to criminality or idealism depending on how it is marketed. A not inconsequential portion are committed criminals and will pivot to the “next big thing” that becomes popular for “white collar” criminal groups.
I have a little bit of exposure to the points I am bringing up, so I may be generalizing, but it’s not like I am just making stuff up.
Oh I’m not at all assigning a universally positive morals to the hypothetical researchers or idealism. I think people would do more or less what their reality pushes them to do. In a reality where studying AI leads to the shortest path from working class to early retirement, I expect people to do what that industry does. AI slop generators for example at untold socioeconomic cost. In a different reality where AI is just another research field, like material science, where studying it does not allow for getting rich quick but leads to careers in automation in various other fields, I expect people interested in it to do that. Just like they do in many other fields of research and development. In this sense someone with high degree of state control over private capital and economic planning could do things differrently than what we observe the market doing in the US. I’m not saying that’s what they would do for sure and that things would be amazingly great. The Chinese have stated they are planning to go this route though.
No idea. He’s probably just talking about the production of people with such education. That said, the field of AI R&D is enormous. There are so many opportunities for productivity improvements in healthcare, manufacturing, farming, chemicals, etc. The more AI-trained specialists you got, the more of those you can attempt. If a country has a goal of increasing economic productivity which doesn’t always jive with the free market economy.
That’s definitely true. There is a lot of potential here. That being said, like with all tech, it’s about the people that apply it.
Not sure I believe this is true in all cases. It is not too unreasonable that there is a decrease in marginal returns on “AI-trained specialists” as the number goes up.
And it is likely that a large number of said “AI-trained specialists” are probably looking to cash in while this option is available.
I am a regular user of a variety of AI/ML tech (not only LLMs, although I do use them a lot in a relatively cautious manner), so I am not really an “AI skeptic”.
I am skeptic of the individuals involved in the AI/ML industry because I know what money can do to people. Not to mention claims/polemics about “millions of AI specialists working diligently to improve the world” have an almost Lenin/Mao-style feel to it.
Some people in this industry might have a measure of idealism, but they are likely a small minority. Most are probably just conformists and just doing whatever, but also not necessarily opposed to criminality or idealism depending on how it is marketed. A not inconsequential portion are committed criminals and will pivot to the “next big thing” that becomes popular for “white collar” criminal groups.
I have a little bit of exposure to the points I am bringing up, so I may be generalizing, but it’s not like I am just making stuff up.
Oh I’m not at all assigning a universally positive morals to the hypothetical researchers or idealism. I think people would do more or less what their reality pushes them to do. In a reality where studying AI leads to the shortest path from working class to early retirement, I expect people to do what that industry does. AI slop generators for example at untold socioeconomic cost. In a different reality where AI is just another research field, like material science, where studying it does not allow for getting rich quick but leads to careers in automation in various other fields, I expect people interested in it to do that. Just like they do in many other fields of research and development. In this sense someone with high degree of state control over private capital and economic planning could do things differrently than what we observe the market doing in the US. I’m not saying that’s what they would do for sure and that things would be amazingly great. The Chinese have stated they are planning to go this route though.