If he's right (that LLMs cannot achieve AGI, but what he's working on can, and does), this would be huge for AI and humanity at large.

Hope it puts to bed the "Europe can't innovate" crowd too.

▲

bluefirebrand 11 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm still just so surprised any time I encounter people who think AI will be overall good for humanity

I pretty strongly think it will only benefit the rich and powerful while further oppressing and devaluing everyone else. I tend to think this is an obvious outcome and it would be obviously very bad (for most of us)

So I wonder if you just think you will be one of the few who benefit at the expense of others, or do you truly believe AI will benefit all of humanity?

▲

sofixa 11 hours ago | parent [-]

> So I wonder if you just think you will be one of the few who benefit at the expense of others

It's not a zero sum game, IMO. It will benefit some, be neutral for others, negative for others.

For instance, improved productivity could be good (and doesn't have to result in layoffs, Jevon's paradox will come into play, IMO, with increased demand). Easier/better/faster scientific research could be good too. Not everyone would benefit from those, but not everyone has to for it to be generally good.

Autonomous AI-powered drone swarms could be bad, or could result in a Mutually Assured Destruction stalemate.

▲

bluefirebrand 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> improved productivity could be good (and doesn't have to result in layoffs

It already has resulted in layoffs and one of the weakest job markets we've seen in ages

Executives could not have used it as an excuse for layoffs faster, they practically tripped over themselves trying to use it as an excuse to lay people off

▲

AndrewKemendo 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>It's not a zero sum game, IMO. It will benefit some, be neutral for others, negative for others.

This is literally a description of a zero sum game

▲

sofixa 7 hours ago | parent [-]

No, a zero sum game would require for the "winners" to take it from the "losers", and there is a limited amount to go around. If there is a majority of "winners" by expanding, some neutral, some negative, that is not a zero sum game.

	▲	AndrewKemendo 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> No, a zero sum game would require for the "winners" to take it from the "losers" You’re so close to getting it and I’m rooting for you