That’s not a bad way of defining it, as far as totally objective definitions go. $100 billion is more than the current net income of all of Microsoft. It’s reasonable to expect that an AI which can do that is better than a human being (in fact, better than 228,000 human beings) at everything which matters to Microsoft.
Good observation. Could it be that Microsoft lowers profits by including unnecessary investments like acquisitions?
So it’d take a 100M users to sign up for the $200/mo plan. All it’d take is for the US government to issue vouchers for video generators to encourage everyone to become a YouTuber instead of being unemployed.
AI is already running all software companies as the principle growth philosophy, but that’s like saying that gold used to run Colorado and California in 1800s. The executives have no choice at all but bet all in on AI now.
That’s basically Neuromancer, and at this point it seems that big tech companies are reading dystopian cyberpunk literature as next-gen business advice books, so you’re certainly right
If they actually achieve AGI I don’t understand what money would even mean anymore. It essentially is just a mechanism for getting people to do things they don’t otherwise want to do, if the AI can do it just as well as the human, but for free other than the electricity costs, why the hell would you pay a human to do it?
It’s like saving up money, in case of nuclear war. There are a few particular moments in history where the state of the world on the far side of the event is so different to the world on this side of the event that there’s no point making any kind of plans based on today systems.
I see what you’re saying and I agree that if, for example, we get an AI god then money won’t be useful. However, that’s not the only possible near-future outcome and if the world as we know it doesn’t end then money can be used by AIs to get other AIs to do something they don’t otherwise want to do.
hence the worldcoin stuff - not just machine to machine. allows “ai” to perform real world action through human incentivization. entirely disturbing if you ask me.
My point is if AI takes over all of the work there won’t be any jobs for humans. So they won’t have any money.
So who are all the AI companies going to sell their products to? The whole system doesn’t work in an AI future and we don’t need AI gods to be able to do our jobs, after all most humans are idiots.
Trade (facilitated by money) doesn’t require humans. It just requires multiple agents and positive-sum interactions. Imagine a company, run by an AI, which makes robots. It sells those robots to another company, also run by an AI, which mines metal (the robots do the mining). The robots are made from metal the first company buys from the second one. The first AI gets to make more robots than it otherwise would, the second AI gets to mine more metal than it otherwise would, and so both are better off.
They don’t care that they’re stuck in a loop, the same way humans keep creating new humans to create new humans to create new humans and so forth.
That’s not a bad way of defining it, as far as totally objective definitions go. $100 billion is more than the current net income of all of Microsoft. It’s reasonable to expect that an AI which can do that is better than a human being (in fact, better than 228,000 human beings) at everything which matters to Microsoft.
Good observation. Could it be that Microsoft lowers profits by including unnecessary investments like acquisitions?
So it’d take a 100M users to sign up for the $200/mo plan. All it’d take is for the US government to issue vouchers for video generators to encourage everyone to become a YouTuber instead of being unemployed.
I suppose that by that point, the AI will be running Microsoft rather than simply being a Microsoft product.
AI is already running all software companies as the principle growth philosophy, but that’s like saying that gold used to run Colorado and California in 1800s. The executives have no choice at all but bet all in on AI now.
Maybe it’ll be able to come up with coherent naming conventions for their products. That would be revolutionary
That’s basically Neuromancer, and at this point it seems that big tech companies are reading dystopian cyberpunk literature as next-gen business advice books, so you’re certainly right
If they actually achieve AGI I don’t understand what money would even mean anymore. It essentially is just a mechanism for getting people to do things they don’t otherwise want to do, if the AI can do it just as well as the human, but for free other than the electricity costs, why the hell would you pay a human to do it?
It’s like saving up money, in case of nuclear war. There are a few particular moments in history where the state of the world on the far side of the event is so different to the world on this side of the event that there’s no point making any kind of plans based on today systems.
I see what you’re saying and I agree that if, for example, we get an AI god then money won’t be useful. However, that’s not the only possible near-future outcome and if the world as we know it doesn’t end then money can be used by AIs to get other AIs to do something they don’t otherwise want to do.
hence the worldcoin stuff - not just machine to machine. allows “ai” to perform real world action through human incentivization. entirely disturbing if you ask me.
My point is if AI takes over all of the work there won’t be any jobs for humans. So they won’t have any money.
So who are all the AI companies going to sell their products to? The whole system doesn’t work in an AI future and we don’t need AI gods to be able to do our jobs, after all most humans are idiots.
Also AI doesn’t need motivation.
Trade (facilitated by money) doesn’t require humans. It just requires multiple agents and positive-sum interactions. Imagine a company, run by an AI, which makes robots. It sells those robots to another company, also run by an AI, which mines metal (the robots do the mining). The robots are made from metal the first company buys from the second one. The first AI gets to make more robots than it otherwise would, the second AI gets to mine more metal than it otherwise would, and so both are better off.
They don’t care that they’re stuck in a loop, the same way humans keep creating new humans to create new humans to create new humans and so forth.