Elon Musk wanted an OpenAI for-profit

I know companies that have (or rather are in the process of) adopting AI into business workflows. The only companies I know of that aren't using more labor to correct their AI tools are the ones that used it pre-ChatGPT/AI Bubble. Plenty of companies have rolled out "talk to our AI" chat bubbles on their websites and users either exploit and jailbreak them to run prompts on the company's dime or generally detest them.

AI is an extremely useful tool that has been improving our lives for a long time - but we're in the middle of an absolutely bonkers level bubble that is devouring millions of dollars for projects that often lack a clear monetization plan. Even code gen seems pretty underwhelming to most of the developers I've heard from that have used it - it may very well be extremely impactful to the next generation of developers - but most current developers have already honed their skills to out-compete code gen in the low complexity problems it can competently perform.

Lots of money is entering markets - but I haven't seen real disruption.

> I have considered the ICO approach and will not support it.

...

> I respect your decision on the ICO idea

Pretty sure they aren't talking about Initial Coin Offerings. Any clue what they mean?

In one of the episodes, Detective Joe Friday spoke with some computer technicians in a building full of computers (giant, at the time). Friday asked the computer technician,

> "One more thing. Do you think that computers will take all our jobs one day?"

> "No. There will always be jobs for humans. Those jobs will change, maybe include working on and maintaining computers, but there will still be important jobs for humans."

That bit of TV stuck with me. Here we are 60 years later and that has proven true. I suspect it will still be true in 60 years, regardless of how well AI advances.

Dario Amodei, former VP of research at OpenAI and current CEO of Anthropic, notes[0] a similar sentiment:

> "First of all, in the short term I agree with arguments that comparative advantage will continue to keep humans relevant and in fact increase their productivity, and may even in some ways level the playing field between humans. As long as AI is only better at 90% of a given job, the other 10% will cause humans to become highly leveraged, increasing compensation and in fact creating a bunch of new human jobs complementing and amplifying what AI is good at, such that the “10%” expands to continue to employ almost everyone. In fact, even if AI can do 100% of things better than humans, but it remains inefficient or expensive at some tasks, or if the resource inputs to humans and AI’s are meaningfully different, then the logic of comparative advantage continues to apply. One area humans are likely to maintain a relative (or even absolute) advantage for a significant time is the physical world. Thus, I think that the human economy may continue to make sense even a little past the point where we reach “a country of geniuses in a datacenter”.

Amodei does think that eventually we may need to eventually organize economic structures with powerful AI in mind, but this need not imply humans will never have jobs.

[0]: https://darioamodei.com/machines-of-loving-grace

https://www.simplypsychology.org/narcissistic-mirroring.html