If this is sarcasm, it's amazing. If not, depressing.

I would 100% expect a commencement speaker to be hyping me up for what comes next.

Unemployment rampant. All production remains in the hands of a few. All power (tokens) remains in the hands of a few. Goods are cheaper but no one can buy them. Path to the upper class now guarded closely by tokens, potential avenues for entrepreneurs diminish rapidly. Own an AI or compute, get someone to give you tokens, or live in poverty.

Distribution of abundance in current time is close to evil, America reducing entitlements and support (not expanding). Rampant waste. No reason to think any of this will change.

This is the kind of commentary that is completely detached from reality: people want housing, people want food, people want gas.

It's not great that we can buy iphones (and AI is going to cause all electronics to be scarce, so much for abundance there)

> Cost of goods and services drops by orders of magnitude at every point in the supply chain.

That sounds great, but how are LLMs supposed to achieve this? You can't just say "AI will make a utopia". You have to present a vision for how it will get us there.

I'm tired of hearing about how AI will solve all the worlds problems. I want to see actual progress towards achieving these goals. And for the most part that hasn't manifested. Most people would consider AI to have had a net negative impact on their lives.

It's hard not to make that leap when so many layoffs are (according to PR releases anyway) attributed to AI adoption. Even if the reality on the ground is that many of these workforce reductions are to make the balance sheets look better (presumably as a bet on AI), it's impossible to ignore the accelerating wealth gap, especially in the context of the gutting of regulations and state actors leveraging world events on prediction markets. We will not be given a fair deal if we simply wait for our benefactors to provide one.

The number of people in absolute poverty has shrunk, but the proportion of national income held by the wealthy has increased, so economic mobility is declining. There are many reasons for this, but typically deployment of technology is a capital expense and employers aim to realize all the gains from their investment, notwithstanding the upskilling and/or deskilling effect it has on workers, who are treated as fungible economic units rather than people. Nobody likes this except capitalists.

Doom is popular right now. People want to feel terrible and pessimistic and their media diets only reinforce this.

Then it should easy to show a world where we are all not in abject poverty. We’re waiting.

Yes, but during those transformations, the CEOs of the companies selling the products involved weren't actively and aggressively marketing them as being able to replace all the humans they employ.

You can't have it both ways: either LLMs are an amazing, revolutionary technology that can replace many human jobs in unprecedented ways, or it's going to be a mild transition that really only helps people.

For someone taking about basic logic, you're making quite the leap in logic by assuming they used LLMs to do every single bit of schoolwork.

> You can't have it both ways.

Yes you can. They use AI and also despise it because it will turn the world into one big caste system. Ones with access to compute, and ones without.