This has dot-com bubble written all over it. But there are some deeper issues.

First, we as a society should really be scrutinizing what we invest in. Trillions of dollars could end homelessness as a rounding error.

Second, real people are going to be punished for this as the layoffs go into overdrive, people lose their houses and people struggle to have enough to eat.

Third, the ultimate goal of all this investment is to displace people from the labor pool. People are annoying. They demand things like fair pay, safe working conditions and sick leave.

Who will buy the results of all this AI if there’s no one left with a job?

Lastly, the externalities of all this investment are indefensible. For example, air and water pollution and rising utility prices.

We’re bouldering towards a future with a few thousand wealthy people where everyone else lives in worker housing, owns nothing and is the next incarnation of brick kiln workers on wealthy estates.

▲

ctoth a day ago | parent | next [-]

Systemically, how would you solve homelessness, if I gave you a trillion dollars?

▲

jddj a day ago | parent [-]

A trillion in a money market fund @ 5% is 50B/year.

Over the course of a few years (so as to not drive up the price of politicians too quickly) one could buy the top N politicians from most countries. From there on out your options are many.

After a decade or so you can probably have your trillion back.

	▲	ctoth a day ago \| parent [-]
		I really do like this answer, but it would seem to have the property of being anti-inductive in that the cost for current politicians is so low because nobody is doing it at scale but if someone did that would force other people to ... well, it's an interesting thought experiment at least!

▲

tonyedgecombe a day ago | parent | prev [-]

The article isn't really about AI (for a change).