Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can go use Codex on high and try it yourself, but I'm sure you'll prove yourself right
ZZZ show something or stop posting fella.
yes because all company libraries should be public lol
Jeff Bezos says AI is in a bubble but society will get 'gigantic' benefits
651–660 of 668 posts
Re: Jeff Bezos says AI is in a bubble but society will get 'gigantic' benefits
#652Re: Jeff Bezos says AI is in a bubble but society will get 'gigantic' benefits
#653Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so?
Thought experiment - Startrek replicators are real. This basically means almost everything can be built without human involvement. The guy who owns the replicators is the richest. The wealth gap is so massive you get revolts (because we're educated, not serfs, right?) So then government needs to step in. Either tax->ubi?, socialize it, or make it a state asset? Regardless, that's the goal of AGI/robotics/etc.
Thought experiments in science work because there are falsifiable scientific theories that make definite predictions about the world than can be tested.
What you wrote is not that.
Re: Jeff Bezos says AI is in a bubble but society will get 'gigantic' benefits
#654Re: Jeff Bezos says AI is in a bubble but society will get 'gigantic' benefits
#655He's (unsurprisingly) making an analogy to the dotcom bubble, which seems to me correct. There was a bubble, many non-viable companies got funded and died, and nevertheless the internet did eventually change everything.
The analogy to the dot com bubble is leaky at best. AI will hit a point of exponential improvement, we are already in the outer parts of this loop. It will become so valuable so fast we struggle to comprehend it.
Very few people predicted LLMs, yet lots of people are now very certain they know what the future of AI holds. I have no idea why so many people have so much faith in their ability to predict the future of technology, when the evidence that they can't is so clear.
It's certainly possible that AI will improve this way, but I'd wager it's extremely unlikely. My sense is that what people are calling AI will later be recognized as obviously steroidal statistical models that could do little else than remix and regurgitate in convincing ways. I guess time will tell which of us is correct.
Re: Jeff Bezos says AI is in a bubble but society will get 'gigantic' benefits
#656Earlier quoted context omitted.
The analogy to the dot com bubble is leaky at best. AI will hit a point of exponential improvement, we are already in the outer parts of this loop. It will become so valuable so fast we struggle to comprehend it.
Very few people predicted LLMs, yet lots of people are now very certain they know what the future of AI holds. I have no idea why so many people have so much faith in their ability to predict the future of technology, when the evidence that they can't is so clear. It's certainly possible that AI will improve this way, but I'd wager it's extremely unlikely. My sense is that what people are calling AI will later be rec…
If those statistical models are helping you do better research, or basically doing most of it better than you can, does it matter? People act like models are implicitly bad because they are statistical, which makes no sense at all.
If the model is doing meaningful research that moves along the state of the ecosystem, then we are in the outer loop of self improvement. And yes it will progress because thats the nature of it doing meaningful work.
Re: Jeff Bezos says AI is in a bubble but society will get 'gigantic' benefits
#657Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very few people predicted LLMs, yet lots of people are now very certain they know what the future of AI holds. I have no idea why so many people have so much faith in their ability to predict the future of technology, when the evidence that they can't is so clear. It's certainly possible that AI will improve this way, but I'd wager it's extremely unlikely. My sense is that what people are calling AI will later be rec…
If those statistical models are helping you do better research, or basically doing most of it better than you can, does it matter? People act like models are implicitly bad because they are statistical, which makes no sense at all. If the model is doing meaningful research that moves along the state of the ecosystem, then we are in the outer loop of self improvement. And yes it will progress because thats the nature…
> If the model is doing meaningful research that moves along the state of the ecosystem, then we are in the outer loop of self improvement.
That's a lot of vague language. I don't really see any way to respond. I suppose I can say this much: the usefulness of a tool is not proof of the correctness of the predictions we make about it.
> And yes it will progress because thats the nature of it doing meaningful work.
This is a non sequitur. It makes no sense.
And I never said there's anything bad about or wrong with statistical models.
Re: Jeff Bezos says AI is in a bubble but society will get 'gigantic' benefits
#658Re: Jeff Bezos says AI is in a bubble but society will get 'gigantic' benefits
#659Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a phd in mathematics and I assure you I am not happy that AI is going to make doing mathematics a waste of time. Go read Gower's essay on it from the 90s. He is spot on.
I would have loved to engage in a conversation, if only to learn something new. But something in the way you framed your reply tells me that that's not what you have in mind. Instead, here's what Dr. Terrence Tao thinks about the same subject [1]. Honestly, I can relate to what he says. I'm not someone who likes or promotes LLMs due to the utterly unethical acts that the big corporations committed to make profits wit…
(Terence Tao is his name.) Yes, he takes a rather measured view on AI, but I think for myself, not in terms of what X great person thinks. He is smarter than I am (you probably are not even aware how amazing he is, frankly, and I only say that to convey my immense admiration), and more successful by a million times, and is a millionaire with a tenure track job, and he's basically a fields medalist among fields medalists. The effect of AI on his life is very little compared to the effect of AI on mine. I am always impressed by Terence Tao, but there's basically no life lesson the average mathematician can glean from him. He is truly astounding (to be fair, there are a few other astonishing people in mathematics).
The truth is that with a few more innovations, even Terence Tao will have little to add to an AI's problem solving ability. I will personally enjoy having mathematics explained to me by the AI, but it will be in relative poverty and material insecurity caused by the AI.
A recent AI data point occurred this last weekend with many coming together to answer MathOverflow post, because Terence Tao answered it with some tedious parts done by AI. https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/115325229364313459
I think his tone is optimistic, but falsely so.
Re: Jeff Bezos says AI is in a bubble but society will get 'gigantic' benefits
#660Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you look at year over year chip improvements in 2025 vs 1998, it's clear that modern hardware just has a longer shelf life than it used to. The difficulties in getting more performance for the same power expenditure are just very different than back in the day. There's still depreciation, but it's not the same. Also look at other forms of hardware, like RAM, and the bonus electrical capacity being built.
In 1998 to transfer a megabyte over telephone lines was expensive and 5 years later is was almost free. I have not seen the prices of GPUs, CPU or RAM going down, on the contrary, each day it gets more expensive.
In 1998, 16 MiB of RAM was ~$200, in 2025, 16 GiB of ram is about $50. A Pentium II in 1998 at 459 MHz was $600. Today, a AMD Ryzen 7 9800X can be had for $500. That Ryzen is maybe 100 times as powerful as the Pentium II. What's available at what price point has changed, but it's ridiculous how much computing I can get for $150 at Best Buy, and it's also ridiculous how little I can do with that much computing power. Wirth’s law still holds: software is getting slower more rapidly than hardware is getting faster.