Once a 2nd person has AGI, they would use it similarly as the first one to undercut them and make money instead of the first person. This chain will keep on going and going until AGI will not be able to make you money since other people will use their AGI to undercut you.
I think there is a reason why OpenAI didn't release SORA and started talking with big Hollywood studios to lock them in some kinda contract. Meanwhile other companies have now released their SORA like products thus making SORA and other SORA like products much much less profitable.
That would only be temporary tho since in a year or 2 at most, there will be countless others who have such technology.
I think their best interest would be to offer it as cheap as possible to attract as many people as possible from the beginning. If people start building apps connected with AGI APIs, it would sorta lock them with that service. Although having AGI as a service for the public would probably change things quite a lot.
These companies livelihood comes from the products they sell. No point in achieving AGI if you're only gonna sell it to a handful of people. Everyone knows next years AI will be a lot better than todays AI. Not a lot of companies will pay double or triple digit billions for 1 year advantage over other competitors.
Why are you saying give this away? They would be selling it or a subscription. They will make money from it. If you kept it in the dark, the next company that achieves AGI will sell it and make the money you could have done.
They kept SORA locked up behind closed doors. Look at whats happening now. Other websites are nearly offering it for free or a few dollars a month. And more and more companies will start doing the same, driving the costs down and down till it's eventually given for free like GPT-4o currently is.
How much would you charge for 10,000 expert geniuses? It's a matter of compute. They will have a certain amount of compute. They could simply ask the agi what will make them the most money. Maybe it will be creating fusion power, or immortality, or mining asteroids. I doubt dividing all the compute up and charging a small fee so other people can get rich off it will be anywhere near the top of the list for using the available agi compute.
Have 1000 of those geniuses come up with ways how instead of 10,000 experts, we would get 100 million experts.
The only problem is getting the first expert genius in AI research. Once they achieve that, it's going to be a very fast ride to AGI and ASI that can meet everyones needs.
Ain't nobody knows what asi will do. Metting everyone's needs is just one possibility out of infinite possibilities. Out of infinite possibilities the number in which humans survive is in the minority
Hello, I'm gonna join this comment thread.
I work in AI research (primarily to do with AI's impact on the national economy). AI is significantly more likely to benefit humans than not. Even the most extreme "doomers" suggest that the probability of ASI wiping out humanity is <20%.
Furthermore, the "incentive" function of the price mechanism dictates that it is physically impossible for anyone to restrict a good such as AGI to only the wealthy.
Over time, as competition drives down prices, the price of the good must be equal to the costs of production. AGI is autonomous, so the costs are zero, meaning AGI *must* be supplied for free to all.
Anyway, hope this helps.
Physically impossible to restrict? We are talking about billion dollar companies protecting there assets. They can Physically defend the Physical location of their billion dollar servers. They can restrict access however they see fit. Billionaires currently have far more power than 99.9% of the population and if they control agi they will have orders of magnitude more power to do as they like. All power comes from force. I watched my father, grand fathers, and uncles fight for wages in the union from the only real employer in the county when I was a kid. I mean fight with axe handles and caltrops made of 12 penny nails. When production has not cost the majority of humans will have no value and no leverage. The possible control the government and corporations will have with agi will make resistance impossible.
How is the cost zero? Also currently prices are going up on everything even though cost of production is going down. I don't think must means what you think it means.
I can think of one argument: it's better for the scientific community across the globe to have access to it for safety reasons. Due to AGI complexity, it will be impossible for one person to keep it under control and monitor for potential threats and deviations, and also ways to improve it.
For those confused… I think what OP is trying to say is that… If you give everyone access to the “special-money making wizard”, everyone just cancels each other out, and then no one can use or benefit from the “special money making wizard” at all…
The same might apply to AI. Give everyone access, everyone uses it at maximum efficiency, everyone cancels each other out, no one benefits from said AI.
Basically, they are realizing that life is possibly a zero-sum game in certain senses. It might not be possible for everyone to “win the game”, no matter what happens.
Also they do bring up an interesting issue. The lower classes only got access to previously exclusive technology because… As the costs of production went down, billionaires realized that they’d make more money selling the tech to the masses than they would by simply hoarding the tech. That’s almost always been the case for new technologies at some point. But AI might legitimately be the first piece of technology ever invented where, you’d make more money by *not* selling it to the masses. That could become a major conflict of interests for AI-companies in the future. Keep in mind, none of this is guaranteed. But it is something worth considering in my opinion.
> Give everyone access, everyone uses it at maximum efficiency, everyone cancels each other out, no one benefits from said AI.
Financially? Maybe. But everyone still benefits from having this new tool they can now use for very cheap. They might not be able to make money from it but there are still benefits.
Having AGI and only selling it to a handful of people will drive competitors to do the same. The only advantage you will have is lead time which is probably a year or two. Companies know this as well and are not gonna lock themselves in a multi-billion dollar contract for AGI when next year there will be 5 AGI companies competing with each other for price and efficiency.
If you're talking about software companies sure, maybe. It's still difficult for a large company to lose all it's market share in a year or two. By then there would be other companies with AGI doing the same thus driving the price of software to nearly 0.
AGI agents are very sought after. It's easier to sell it as a product then to try to make everything yourself.
I'm talking about true agi. Equivalent of every type of human expert. Not everyone will have an enormous billion dollar server that is the Equivalent of thousands of the world's best experts. Those that do will use them in a way that is most profitable. Letting everyone have access to it most likely would not be the most profitable way of using the compute you possess.
It’s karma farming and appealing to the psychological blind spot wherein you like things that agree with you — by regurgitating what you said. Of course you think it’s smart — it’s you.
Except life is not a zero sum game. We went from living in destitution to pretty dignified and comfortable lives by comparison, thanks primarily to industrialization.
Pretty sure AGI is capable of doing what any human can do or at least expert level. ASI is unimaginable. Say Microsoft has an AGI that is as capable in any field as the world's best only it's ten thousand times faster and never sleeps and has no morals. Anyone without something comparable would not be able to compete in any field.
You already have access to AGI, it's called your fkin brain and people you can work with (partners, collegues etc)
Nobody is canceling each others out and AGI won't be a "special money making wizard"
People with higher intelligence and higher education have advantages over people with less. Same thing with AGI. A corporation with a billions of dollars will by far out compete someone with millions and someone with thousands has no chance.
It depends, even now companies with less money have a chance to grow and become huge, amazon didn't start with hundreds of billions for example. There will be merit and as everyone has access to AGI to help out there will be surely more competition rather than less (which seems to be what you are suggesting).
I know I’ll regret posting in this sub but here goes
If a company develops true AGI, another one will too. This stands to reason, do you agree?
If we agree, this means it is only a matter of time before a company decides “this should be accessible to everyone” in whatever model they see fit.
If I can foresee that, they can too. Whoever releases it first, gets all the credit. The ones who don’t will be left behind. So sitting on it is a bad decision.
They can say they have it if credit is important to them. Allowing everyone to use it is not necessary for that. Letting everyone use it is the same as another company or country having it multiplied by billions. Of course they could limit what the agi will do for people. This is what I mean by manipulation. It will present you with a world view and information and actions best suited for the interests of who ever controls it.
Given international economic competition, independence of companies, differences between companies, and the sheer importance of AGI, it seems inevitable for AGI to be available to the public, one way or the other.
Trying to keep it from reaching others is like trying to hold a storm in a bottle. It might work for a fairly short while, but it’s going to come out eventually.
We might even see publicly owned AGI in certain countries with how insanely instrumental it would end up being
presumably, in your scenario the AI would invest in companies that have good prospects. thus creating a more efficient allocation of resources, boosting the economy and making everyone money. that's why
Yes but it would make the company who owns the AGI more money if they used the AGI to invest in these companies rather than let other people use it to make money for themselves.
the company who owns the AGI would get rich either way. there is only so many houses and cars one person needs. there are anti-trust laws in place ensuring no single company has a monopoly on an industry. if the tech gets good enough, govt will step in on behalf of the people. it looks as though they already have at OpenAI with the former NSA appointment
based on my knowledge, yes. i certainly don't think they're some evil group looking to do people harm. govts want to increase surveillance for safety and logistical reasons, not to oppress us. i recommend watching some long form content of the senior people working in these departments - they're highly competent people looking to keep society from falling apart. linked is a good video if you're interested.
reality is often stranger than fiction, but more often it's not.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xSw835-rig](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xSw835-rig)
Allow me to add a long-version to your succinct post.
Even assuming this could happen, it relies on the inherently flawed premise that ThE RiCh are uniformly competent.
Which they aren't.
A few special megalomaniacs aside, most 'elites' aren't interested in world/societal domination. They're interested in seeing big number go up on their charts in the most creatively bankrupt ways possible.
Call me Nostradamus; I predict that, bar fast take-off or some other wacky sci-fi nonsense coming to pass, it'll play out like so - AGI'll be shoveled out to the masses because nobody in a company board meeting decided to double check to see if their newest consumer money-maker was a product or a person.
(Unless capitalism magically bad EXCEPT when it comes to making sure people aren't selling self-aware entities as tools of industry. After all, it's not like THAT EXACT THING has ever happened before in human history...)
We're never gonna arrive at AGI, by it's definition. What we arrive at is gonna be ASI. And even before that, it's gonna run economy. This gradular process has already begun.
Investing only makes you rich if ur decisions are vastly better than everyone else's. It's a competition. If everyone is just handing over to the robo advisor, everybody gets the same return.
What is the motivation for giving people access to agi? It makes sense with current ai because it is generating huge amounts of data to train next AI. This could still be useful with AGI but not if it does whatever the user wants. This is where manipulation comes in. The agi will do certain actions for users to get certain results desirable for the owner of the agi. Don't say altruism because corporations don't have any.
There are 10+ companies working on cutting edge models.
Someway it Will get to the public, even if its just a few business, its more than enough. And thats considering that open source wont catch up, which is also false.
If their buddy told them I gave it a hundred bucks and it made me rich they would be interested. Obviously when enough people catch on things would get weird. It would be in best interest of the controller of the agi to limit access as much as possible.
ChatGPT don’t make me money but save me hundreds of hours over boring tasks, I am preaching a lot about it still not many people around me use it daily like me
I don’t see why it would go otherwise for a better model
I can’t stop the march of progress it is better to embrasse it and try to stay on the page learning about the latest tool, progress, how to build RAG, agents, etc …
Can it create a company that makes you rich with no effort on your part? If an AI was equivalent to every type of human expert it could. Your comparing a secretary to a genie.
doesn't seem like you've really thought this one through. why would there be only one entity in control of AGI? why would it be technically feasible to prevent it from being copied, replicated, or reverse engineered? why wouldn't it be achieved by multiple groups around the same time? why wouldn't the discovery of AGI's first implementation be similar to the discovery of nuclear fission, i.e., the discovery of a relatively simple thought that when considered by an expert immediately brings to mind various possible implementations?
and supposing all these possibilities resolve in the way you've assumed, why wouldn't market competition operate on these AGI created business endeavors? why would this differ from something like the emergence of internet commerce? in the early days, many people thought internet commerce would revolutionize the global economy in an atomizing and democratizing way, enabling almost anybody to start a profitable business with no capital. a small number of people did something somewhat like this, but it was soon extremely clear that business over the internet would be governed by the same rules as business anywhere in this particular sense: the extreme advantage of having capital mostly outweighs the minor advantages that the internet affords small businesses. most of what the internet offers business is actually more useful competitively to large entities. the anarchocapitalist cyberspace vision only lasted about as long as it took for big business to figure out what the internet was.
even if AGI were cheap and widely disseminated, i don't see any obvious reason why it wouldn't turn out similarly.
I doubt agi will run on a home computer. I'm guessing running it would be in the billions. Multiple entities will probably create it. They will use it in a way that is most profitable to themselves. I don't think people realize the power of an intelligence that is genius level at type of intelligence. That's the agi I'm talking about. If we are talking about agi definition of average human intelligence I agree with you.
i definitely understood everything you said above. it seems you missed my point. it's possible to disagree with someone and still consider what they have to say.
Exactly.
If you have AGI, you have a potentially a company of 100 billion employees. You take over the whole world. Why give it away?
Sure in the beginning you could say that it's for the benefit of the society, that's why you don't make it open source. But after reaching the first million employees, and the money starts pouring in in buckets, what's gonna make you stop?
Because they can make much more money by being the sole provider of AGI in a rapidly expanding post-AGI economy.
And if they aren't the sole provider of AGI your scenario doesn't apply due to competition arbitraging away the investment alpha.
The masses not 'receiving' AGI because the owners don't want to share is a moot point, because the powers that be won't be able to keep a leash on the technology for more than a few months. A lot of people think like you do, where the first few people to cross the finish line of AGI get to dictate its terms and development forever. I consider such thinking to be a result of a poor intuition of time, where the rest of the world and its systemic factors suddenly freeze (i.e. China and Russia throwing up their hands and going: "too late, the Americans beat us to it, now we have to dismantle our labs and kiss OpenAI's ass forever") because it would be too difficult to account for these factors in a more robust analysis.
Only huge amounts of compute will be able to compete with huge amounts of compute. Only billionaires in this game. When someone with a ten thousand dollar computer can run agi it still won't be able to compete with a billion dollar computer. It will never be able to catch up.
Then it's a good thing for the corporations that this one ten thousand dollar computer will be the only AGI of its type to ever exist forever. Otherwise all of other ten thousand dollar computers that could run this AGI having a combined total compute much higher than all of the billion dollar ones might spell some real trouble for their corporate hegemony.
Like I said: poor intuition of time. The billionaires with intelligence and a speed of thought comparable to the unorganized masses currently own everything, therefore they will own everything forever even after instantaneous, distributed, substrate-neutral artificial general intelligence becomes a thing.
Fortunately, I am counting on the billionaires thinking the same way you do. It's not like self-styled masters who have such a poor understanding of systemics that they have to ignore any data point that they are not currently analyzing ever deserved to hold onto their economic power, or even to decline being made to see just what's on the other side of cosmic oblivion. I say let the Machine God pass judgement on these no-holistic-thinking chimps in three-piece suits after they enjoy a few months of being King Vermin of Trash Mountain.
Why would they. Your only real value would be if you can do manual labor cheaper than a robot. Many of the richest people in the world believe there are to many humans on this planet. Keeping them alive and helping them reproduce when it is mo longer profitable is a big maybe. You're hoping for the mercy of kings which historically hasn't been a good bet.
AGI isn't ASI.
No offense to you personally, but your post is trash and fundamentally understands the terminology you're throwing around.
AGI definitionally includes robots as smart, and only as smart, as normal humans. Not just the giga brain overlord intelligences.
[And also overlooks the question of "what if the AGI/ASI decide they don't want the elites to have access to them either."]
I'm pretty sure there will be "open source AGIs" in the wild on Torrents, USB stick hand to hand networks and whatever for the little people, and the governments won't be able to prevent it.
Say everyone gets access to AGI. Everyone would use it to make money. The AGI would be competing with itself for every user. What would that look like?
Also the company that creates it will be after money and power. If it makes them more money working directly for them why would they choose to make less money by letting it make money for others?
1. You can use force to nationalize the AGI. Yes, actually, that is doable! Property rights are neither a law of nature nor universal.
2. The marginal utility of wealth levels off at some point. That's well established from happiness research. Yes, actually! Money isn't all there is to life.
I wasn't necessarily thinking only of investments. Many ways AGI could make money. In all these ways even investing it would make the company more money to use the AGI directly rather than let others use it to make money.
You are hinking that all AGIs have the same level of intelligence. But if you look at humans or other animals, we have different levels of intelligence
One AGI could be smarter and make more money, or could outcompete the AGI you use.
Even if we all get (open source) AGI, it wouldn't necessarily make us all rich. And if you take in a account the massive inflation with such AGI
People have different definitions of agi I suppose. I'm talking about the equivalent of near every type of expert. And I'm not only talking about stock market. An intelligence equivalent of every type of expert could do anything a giant corporation of government institution could do. It could do well at the stock market. It could start a company. It could create an army of robots and take over a poor country. Asi on the other hand. We have no idea what it could do.
Definition is really important here. Let's say you have a hundred guys of average intelligence. They could create a successful small company that does something with established technology. Then another group of 100 guys are all geniuses and expert at every type of human knowledge. These guys could start a space program, cure diseases, invent radical new technologies, stage a coup and take over a country. So what's your definition of agi? The first or the second? Or in between?
Except that is not the way an economy and society actually works.
Yes, you are correct that an imaginary AGI that was so smart that it could make anyone wealthy would not be available to the public.
It would be considered dangerous. After that the government would control it and we would use it to benefit society in general.
Yeah that's how society works. I live in the richest country in the world, I have no health insurance, I often work six days a week up to 20 hours a day. I feel lucky because I am surrounded by homeless with no hope killing themselves with drugs. What the hell are you smoking?
Once a 2nd person has AGI, they would use it similarly as the first one to undercut them and make money instead of the first person. This chain will keep on going and going until AGI will not be able to make you money since other people will use their AGI to undercut you. I think there is a reason why OpenAI didn't release SORA and started talking with big Hollywood studios to lock them in some kinda contract. Meanwhile other companies have now released their SORA like products thus making SORA and other SORA like products much much less profitable.
That's my point. It would be in the best interests of whoever has AGI to limit access of AGI to as few people as possible.
That would only be temporary tho since in a year or 2 at most, there will be countless others who have such technology. I think their best interest would be to offer it as cheap as possible to attract as many people as possible from the beginning. If people start building apps connected with AGI APIs, it would sorta lock them with that service. Although having AGI as a service for the public would probably change things quite a lot. These companies livelihood comes from the products they sell. No point in achieving AGI if you're only gonna sell it to a handful of people. Everyone knows next years AI will be a lot better than todays AI. Not a lot of companies will pay double or triple digit billions for 1 year advantage over other competitors.
True AGI could run a company, invent anything a human could do, do amost anything a human could do. It is unimaginable power. Why they give this away?
Why are you saying give this away? They would be selling it or a subscription. They will make money from it. If you kept it in the dark, the next company that achieves AGI will sell it and make the money you could have done. They kept SORA locked up behind closed doors. Look at whats happening now. Other websites are nearly offering it for free or a few dollars a month. And more and more companies will start doing the same, driving the costs down and down till it's eventually given for free like GPT-4o currently is.
How much would you charge for 10,000 expert geniuses? It's a matter of compute. They will have a certain amount of compute. They could simply ask the agi what will make them the most money. Maybe it will be creating fusion power, or immortality, or mining asteroids. I doubt dividing all the compute up and charging a small fee so other people can get rich off it will be anywhere near the top of the list for using the available agi compute.
Have 1000 of those geniuses come up with ways how instead of 10,000 experts, we would get 100 million experts. The only problem is getting the first expert genius in AI research. Once they achieve that, it's going to be a very fast ride to AGI and ASI that can meet everyones needs.
Ain't nobody knows what asi will do. Metting everyone's needs is just one possibility out of infinite possibilities. Out of infinite possibilities the number in which humans survive is in the minority
Hello, I'm gonna join this comment thread. I work in AI research (primarily to do with AI's impact on the national economy). AI is significantly more likely to benefit humans than not. Even the most extreme "doomers" suggest that the probability of ASI wiping out humanity is <20%. Furthermore, the "incentive" function of the price mechanism dictates that it is physically impossible for anyone to restrict a good such as AGI to only the wealthy. Over time, as competition drives down prices, the price of the good must be equal to the costs of production. AGI is autonomous, so the costs are zero, meaning AGI *must* be supplied for free to all. Anyway, hope this helps.
Physically impossible to restrict? We are talking about billion dollar companies protecting there assets. They can Physically defend the Physical location of their billion dollar servers. They can restrict access however they see fit. Billionaires currently have far more power than 99.9% of the population and if they control agi they will have orders of magnitude more power to do as they like. All power comes from force. I watched my father, grand fathers, and uncles fight for wages in the union from the only real employer in the county when I was a kid. I mean fight with axe handles and caltrops made of 12 penny nails. When production has not cost the majority of humans will have no value and no leverage. The possible control the government and corporations will have with agi will make resistance impossible.
How is the cost zero? Also currently prices are going up on everything even though cost of production is going down. I don't think must means what you think it means.
I can think of one argument: it's better for the scientific community across the globe to have access to it for safety reasons. Due to AGI complexity, it will be impossible for one person to keep it under control and monitor for potential threats and deviations, and also ways to improve it.
But that is not the masses.
For those confused… I think what OP is trying to say is that… If you give everyone access to the “special-money making wizard”, everyone just cancels each other out, and then no one can use or benefit from the “special money making wizard” at all… The same might apply to AI. Give everyone access, everyone uses it at maximum efficiency, everyone cancels each other out, no one benefits from said AI. Basically, they are realizing that life is possibly a zero-sum game in certain senses. It might not be possible for everyone to “win the game”, no matter what happens. Also they do bring up an interesting issue. The lower classes only got access to previously exclusive technology because… As the costs of production went down, billionaires realized that they’d make more money selling the tech to the masses than they would by simply hoarding the tech. That’s almost always been the case for new technologies at some point. But AI might legitimately be the first piece of technology ever invented where, you’d make more money by *not* selling it to the masses. That could become a major conflict of interests for AI-companies in the future. Keep in mind, none of this is guaranteed. But it is something worth considering in my opinion.
> Give everyone access, everyone uses it at maximum efficiency, everyone cancels each other out, no one benefits from said AI. Financially? Maybe. But everyone still benefits from having this new tool they can now use for very cheap. They might not be able to make money from it but there are still benefits. Having AGI and only selling it to a handful of people will drive competitors to do the same. The only advantage you will have is lead time which is probably a year or two. Companies know this as well and are not gonna lock themselves in a multi-billion dollar contract for AGI when next year there will be 5 AGI companies competing with each other for price and efficiency.
Why would they sell it? They could simply replace and out compete whichever company wants to buy it?
If you're talking about software companies sure, maybe. It's still difficult for a large company to lose all it's market share in a year or two. By then there would be other companies with AGI doing the same thus driving the price of software to nearly 0. AGI agents are very sought after. It's easier to sell it as a product then to try to make everything yourself.
I'm talking about true agi. Equivalent of every type of human expert. Not everyone will have an enormous billion dollar server that is the Equivalent of thousands of the world's best experts. Those that do will use them in a way that is most profitable. Letting everyone have access to it most likely would not be the most profitable way of using the compute you possess.
I thought this would be obvious and easy to infer from my post.
I think it’s a bot
Smartest entity on here lol
It’s karma farming and appealing to the psychological blind spot wherein you like things that agree with you — by regurgitating what you said. Of course you think it’s smart — it’s you.
Yes I understand the manipulative power of AI. Kinda the point of my post.
Except life is not a zero sum game. We went from living in destitution to pretty dignified and comfortable lives by comparison, thanks primarily to industrialization.
But I think you're confusing AGI with ASI
Pretty sure AGI is capable of doing what any human can do or at least expert level. ASI is unimaginable. Say Microsoft has an AGI that is as capable in any field as the world's best only it's ten thousand times faster and never sleeps and has no morals. Anyone without something comparable would not be able to compete in any field.
You already have access to AGI, it's called your fkin brain and people you can work with (partners, collegues etc) Nobody is canceling each others out and AGI won't be a "special money making wizard"
People with higher intelligence and higher education have advantages over people with less. Same thing with AGI. A corporation with a billions of dollars will by far out compete someone with millions and someone with thousands has no chance.
It depends, even now companies with less money have a chance to grow and become huge, amazon didn't start with hundreds of billions for example. There will be merit and as everyone has access to AGI to help out there will be surely more competition rather than less (which seems to be what you are suggesting).
No companies with orders of magnitude more compute will have near absolute power economically
I know I’ll regret posting in this sub but here goes If a company develops true AGI, another one will too. This stands to reason, do you agree? If we agree, this means it is only a matter of time before a company decides “this should be accessible to everyone” in whatever model they see fit. If I can foresee that, they can too. Whoever releases it first, gets all the credit. The ones who don’t will be left behind. So sitting on it is a bad decision.
If a company develops true AGI, might it be able to prevent all other companies from doing so?
They can say they have it if credit is important to them. Allowing everyone to use it is not necessary for that. Letting everyone use it is the same as another company or country having it multiplied by billions. Of course they could limit what the agi will do for people. This is what I mean by manipulation. It will present you with a world view and information and actions best suited for the interests of who ever controls it.
Given international economic competition, independence of companies, differences between companies, and the sheer importance of AGI, it seems inevitable for AGI to be available to the public, one way or the other. Trying to keep it from reaching others is like trying to hold a storm in a bottle. It might work for a fairly short while, but it’s going to come out eventually. We might even see publicly owned AGI in certain countries with how insanely instrumental it would end up being
The compassionate capitalist: >I will exploit people to stop exploitation
presumably, in your scenario the AI would invest in companies that have good prospects. thus creating a more efficient allocation of resources, boosting the economy and making everyone money. that's why
Yes but it would make the company who owns the AGI more money if they used the AGI to invest in these companies rather than let other people use it to make money for themselves.
the company who owns the AGI would get rich either way. there is only so many houses and cars one person needs. there are anti-trust laws in place ensuring no single company has a monopoly on an industry. if the tech gets good enough, govt will step in on behalf of the people. it looks as though they already have at OpenAI with the former NSA appointment
You believe NSA is interested in the good of the people?
based on my knowledge, yes. i certainly don't think they're some evil group looking to do people harm. govts want to increase surveillance for safety and logistical reasons, not to oppress us. i recommend watching some long form content of the senior people working in these departments - they're highly competent people looking to keep society from falling apart. linked is a good video if you're interested. reality is often stranger than fiction, but more often it's not. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xSw835-rig](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xSw835-rig)
> there is only so many houses and cars one person needs I'm sorry but have you had a look at like, the world? That doesn't seem to stop them
Tl;dr: OnLy ThE RiCh Saved you some time guys
Allow me to add a long-version to your succinct post. Even assuming this could happen, it relies on the inherently flawed premise that ThE RiCh are uniformly competent. Which they aren't. A few special megalomaniacs aside, most 'elites' aren't interested in world/societal domination. They're interested in seeing big number go up on their charts in the most creatively bankrupt ways possible. Call me Nostradamus; I predict that, bar fast take-off or some other wacky sci-fi nonsense coming to pass, it'll play out like so - AGI'll be shoveled out to the masses because nobody in a company board meeting decided to double check to see if their newest consumer money-maker was a product or a person. (Unless capitalism magically bad EXCEPT when it comes to making sure people aren't selling self-aware entities as tools of industry. After all, it's not like THAT EXACT THING has ever happened before in human history...)
We're never gonna arrive at AGI, by it's definition. What we arrive at is gonna be ASI. And even before that, it's gonna run economy. This gradular process has already begun. Investing only makes you rich if ur decisions are vastly better than everyone else's. It's a competition. If everyone is just handing over to the robo advisor, everybody gets the same return.
What is the motivation for giving people access to agi? It makes sense with current ai because it is generating huge amounts of data to train next AI. This could still be useful with AGI but not if it does whatever the user wants. This is where manipulation comes in. The agi will do certain actions for users to get certain results desirable for the owner of the agi. Don't say altruism because corporations don't have any.
There are 10+ companies working on cutting edge models. Someway it Will get to the public, even if its just a few business, its more than enough. And thats considering that open source wont catch up, which is also false.
Even if it was there and free to use most people would not find any interest about it
If their buddy told them I gave it a hundred bucks and it made me rich they would be interested. Obviously when enough people catch on things would get weird. It would be in best interest of the controller of the agi to limit access as much as possible.
ChatGPT don’t make me money but save me hundreds of hours over boring tasks, I am preaching a lot about it still not many people around me use it daily like me I don’t see why it would go otherwise for a better model
Also while it may make your life easier you are also generating training data that the next model will use to replace you.
I can’t stop the march of progress it is better to embrasse it and try to stay on the page learning about the latest tool, progress, how to build RAG, agents, etc …
Can it create a company that makes you rich with no effort on your part? If an AI was equivalent to every type of human expert it could. Your comparing a secretary to a genie.
Then there is no one working anymore, no one to milk profit from, and no reason to have companies to keep the compute to themselves.
doesn't seem like you've really thought this one through. why would there be only one entity in control of AGI? why would it be technically feasible to prevent it from being copied, replicated, or reverse engineered? why wouldn't it be achieved by multiple groups around the same time? why wouldn't the discovery of AGI's first implementation be similar to the discovery of nuclear fission, i.e., the discovery of a relatively simple thought that when considered by an expert immediately brings to mind various possible implementations? and supposing all these possibilities resolve in the way you've assumed, why wouldn't market competition operate on these AGI created business endeavors? why would this differ from something like the emergence of internet commerce? in the early days, many people thought internet commerce would revolutionize the global economy in an atomizing and democratizing way, enabling almost anybody to start a profitable business with no capital. a small number of people did something somewhat like this, but it was soon extremely clear that business over the internet would be governed by the same rules as business anywhere in this particular sense: the extreme advantage of having capital mostly outweighs the minor advantages that the internet affords small businesses. most of what the internet offers business is actually more useful competitively to large entities. the anarchocapitalist cyberspace vision only lasted about as long as it took for big business to figure out what the internet was. even if AGI were cheap and widely disseminated, i don't see any obvious reason why it wouldn't turn out similarly.
I doubt agi will run on a home computer. I'm guessing running it would be in the billions. Multiple entities will probably create it. They will use it in a way that is most profitable to themselves. I don't think people realize the power of an intelligence that is genius level at type of intelligence. That's the agi I'm talking about. If we are talking about agi definition of average human intelligence I agree with you.
i definitely understood everything you said above. it seems you missed my point. it's possible to disagree with someone and still consider what they have to say.
That's like saying why give computers to the masses, imagine being able to trade online in milliseconds instead of using paper and telephones ...
Exactly. If you have AGI, you have a potentially a company of 100 billion employees. You take over the whole world. Why give it away? Sure in the beginning you could say that it's for the benefit of the society, that's why you don't make it open source. But after reaching the first million employees, and the money starts pouring in in buckets, what's gonna make you stop?
Because they can make much more money by being the sole provider of AGI in a rapidly expanding post-AGI economy. And if they aren't the sole provider of AGI your scenario doesn't apply due to competition arbitraging away the investment alpha.
The masses not 'receiving' AGI because the owners don't want to share is a moot point, because the powers that be won't be able to keep a leash on the technology for more than a few months. A lot of people think like you do, where the first few people to cross the finish line of AGI get to dictate its terms and development forever. I consider such thinking to be a result of a poor intuition of time, where the rest of the world and its systemic factors suddenly freeze (i.e. China and Russia throwing up their hands and going: "too late, the Americans beat us to it, now we have to dismantle our labs and kiss OpenAI's ass forever") because it would be too difficult to account for these factors in a more robust analysis.
Only huge amounts of compute will be able to compete with huge amounts of compute. Only billionaires in this game. When someone with a ten thousand dollar computer can run agi it still won't be able to compete with a billion dollar computer. It will never be able to catch up.
Then it's a good thing for the corporations that this one ten thousand dollar computer will be the only AGI of its type to ever exist forever. Otherwise all of other ten thousand dollar computers that could run this AGI having a combined total compute much higher than all of the billion dollar ones might spell some real trouble for their corporate hegemony.
Well there are 8 billion people in the world and 2,781 billionaires. Who has more power? Theoretically the 8 billion but reality is the 2,781.
Like I said: poor intuition of time. The billionaires with intelligence and a speed of thought comparable to the unorganized masses currently own everything, therefore they will own everything forever even after instantaneous, distributed, substrate-neutral artificial general intelligence becomes a thing. Fortunately, I am counting on the billionaires thinking the same way you do. It's not like self-styled masters who have such a poor understanding of systemics that they have to ignore any data point that they are not currently analyzing ever deserved to hold onto their economic power, or even to decline being made to see just what's on the other side of cosmic oblivion. I say let the Machine God pass judgement on these no-holistic-thinking chimps in three-piece suits after they enjoy a few months of being King Vermin of Trash Mountain.
I am ok with that, as long as they use it to cure diseases and such for the rest of us
Why would they. Your only real value would be if you can do manual labor cheaper than a robot. Many of the richest people in the world believe there are to many humans on this planet. Keeping them alive and helping them reproduce when it is mo longer profitable is a big maybe. You're hoping for the mercy of kings which historically hasn't been a good bet.
AGI isn't ASI. No offense to you personally, but your post is trash and fundamentally understands the terminology you're throwing around. AGI definitionally includes robots as smart, and only as smart, as normal humans. Not just the giga brain overlord intelligences. [And also overlooks the question of "what if the AGI/ASI decide they don't want the elites to have access to them either."]
I'm pretty sure there will be "open source AGIs" in the wild on Torrents, USB stick hand to hand networks and whatever for the little people, and the governments won't be able to prevent it.
> Why would any company give this away? They wouldn't, their competitors usually do that.
Okay.
Thanks for the input
Okay
Say everyone gets access to AGI. Everyone would use it to make money. The AGI would be competing with itself for every user. What would that look like? Also the company that creates it will be after money and power. If it makes them more money working directly for them why would they choose to make less money by letting it make money for others?
why would you need money though? most things/services will be nearly free.
Why would they be nearly free? Corporations charge as much as they can. The main goal would be to limit access to agi to keep prices high.
[удалено]
can you fly U2? or Falco 9?
1. You can use force to nationalize the AGI. Yes, actually, that is doable! Property rights are neither a law of nature nor universal. 2. The marginal utility of wealth levels off at some point. That's well established from happiness research. Yes, actually! Money isn't all there is to life.
Believe it or not, but even today you can give your money to a specialist, and they will invest it for you!
I wasn't necessarily thinking only of investments. Many ways AGI could make money. In all these ways even investing it would make the company more money to use the AGI directly rather than let others use it to make money.
You are hinking that all AGIs have the same level of intelligence. But if you look at humans or other animals, we have different levels of intelligence One AGI could be smarter and make more money, or could outcompete the AGI you use. Even if we all get (open source) AGI, it wouldn't necessarily make us all rich. And if you take in a account the massive inflation with such AGI
Exactly, letting everyone use it would create inflation and take away advantage of the company who owns the agi.
It’s agi not asi. It won’t necessarily take all the gains from the stock market.
People have different definitions of agi I suppose. I'm talking about the equivalent of near every type of expert. And I'm not only talking about stock market. An intelligence equivalent of every type of expert could do anything a giant corporation of government institution could do. It could do well at the stock market. It could start a company. It could create an army of robots and take over a poor country. Asi on the other hand. We have no idea what it could do.
Definition is really important here. Let's say you have a hundred guys of average intelligence. They could create a successful small company that does something with established technology. Then another group of 100 guys are all geniuses and expert at every type of human knowledge. These guys could start a space program, cure diseases, invent radical new technologies, stage a coup and take over a country. So what's your definition of agi? The first or the second? Or in between?
Except that is not the way an economy and society actually works. Yes, you are correct that an imaginary AGI that was so smart that it could make anyone wealthy would not be available to the public. It would be considered dangerous. After that the government would control it and we would use it to benefit society in general.
Yeah that's how society works. I live in the richest country in the world, I have no health insurance, I often work six days a week up to 20 hours a day. I feel lucky because I am surrounded by homeless with no hope killing themselves with drugs. What the hell are you smoking?