As soon as you can demonstrate decent financial returns (ie. the AI can run a company better than humans can), suddenly it makes sense to put a lot more $$$ in even if returns are diminishing - since whoever runs companies the best gets control of a big chunk of the world economy.

▲

ejeje12a 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

“ ie. the AI can run a company better than humans can”

lol You can always tell who has never ran a business before with comments like this

▲

satvikpendem 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I understood their point, if we truly get AGI then no reason to think AI would be worse than a human.

▲

asplake an hour ago | parent | next [-]

AGI with people skills?

▲

ejeje12a 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

cheevly 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You are literally an AI spambot account, that's the hilarious irony here.

▲

satvikpendem 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Well yes that's the worry isn't it? That people will soon all be unemployed? Just because it sounds farfetched doesn't mean you should stick your head in the sand, seeing the pace of development these days, that is "reasoning properly" and it just seems you are trying to block out what seems inconvenient to hear.

	▲	ejeje12a 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[flagged]

▲

flir 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If that works... why not just jump straight to a planned economy run by LLM? Skip the whole messy "free market" thing altogether?

(I don't think it will work).

▲

allendoerfer 3 hours ago | parent [-]

What do you have against multi-agent reinforcement learning systems and why do you think they are not AI?

	▲	flir 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		londons_explore is arguing for a winner-takes-all scenario, with an early advantage locking everyone and everything else out.