No. I also cannot make a competitive computer, yet can use one for my work to remain competitive.

Yes, it could take some time to arrive on phones. It is questionable if it will ever make sense compared to using a paid hosted provider.

But what are 10 years in the grand scheme of things?

Should we have scrapped it all, called it a crime against humanity, and never developed AI, because it will take a decade to disseminate the benefits to everyone?

▲

oblio 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Should we have scrapped it all, called it a crime against humanity, and never developed AI, because it will take a decade to disseminate the benefits to everyone?

Nah, we should have:

1. invested less, in a more targeted way

2. ideally like ARPANET, with the benefits given to all humanity

3. with fair royalties paid to all (where relevant)

4. and by creating an ever growing shared curated and high quality data set that would allow anyone to create their own competitive LLM

ARPANET & co were all taxpayer funded and the internet has created more wealth than most human inventions. The base should be part of the commons, everyone should knock themselves out by building on top.

Exactly like the internet.

▲

SecretDreams 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> and never developed AI, because it will take a decade to disseminate the benefits to everyone?

Yes, probably. The benefits of dissemination already existed. The internet was free. Libraries are free. You deny people basic reading and comprehension growth by giving a distilled, without thought, answer.

You say "some time in the future this might be available on our phones for free" and "what's 10 years in the grand scheme of things?"

We'll, I'll argue that in 10 years from now we may see the full damage of what doing this has done to us and I'd rather not wait for "the what's 10 years in the grand scheme of things" to playout and irreversibly damage an entire generation the way we let the unmitigated and unregulated rollout of social media do the same to the most recent generation.

The risk/reward of this technology is unproven regarding the long-term effects on developing minds. We are beta testing the bullshit dreams of a couple billionaire techbros on an entire cohort of kids and young adults.

▲

user43928 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I couldn't disagree more.

What I expect to see in 10 years is breakthroughs in science and medicine, with major diseases becoming treatable.

You can disagree, but on what basis do you think your predictions are more likely to be correct?

Humanity has turned out fine despite the invention of the book, the TV, and then social media. I reckon kids will develop just fine with AI too.

▲

SecretDreams 5 hours ago | parent [-]

It's absurd to equate books and social media to being akin. And you're being facetious in your comments.

What if you are wrong? What are the risks vs rewards?

▲

user43928 5 hours ago | parent [-]

The main risk you have presented is a supposed negative effect on children's development. I am not convinced that there will be a negative effect at all.

On the reward side we have potentially curing most major disease, automating labor and freeing humanity from having to work for a living, as well as perhaps generally advancing science at an unprecedented pace. And of course improving education.

	▲	SecretDreams 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You not being convinced does not mean we do not need to protect for the risk. I suspect there's a lot of things you're not convinced of. Probably some things that are financially misaligned with your own welfare.