Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ovirt001 t1_je63rvi wrote

Reply to comment by Shiningc in Would a corporation realistically release an AGI to the public? by Shiningc

Until we find more efficient ways to run it or design better hardware, a single instance of an AGI will require all those hundreds of thousands of computers to run. ChatGPT was estimated in January to cost $3 million per month to run (Azure cloud resources) and it's still pretty far from an actual AGI.

1

Shiningc OP t1_je64llj wrote

The thing is, once you make an AGI then the AGI itself should theoretically make better versions of itself. There's really no reason to sell the AGI because the AGI should find ways to make more money.

1

ovirt001 t1_je65tu2 wrote

Assuming it can optimize its own code. Humans can't exactly optimize themselves to run on better hardware. Even so, it wouldn't matter because access is already being distributed. GPT-4 is available to researchers and businesses and is currently being integrated into all kinds of products.

1

Shiningc OP t1_je65z7k wrote

GPT-4 isn't AGI.

1

ovirt001 t1_je668ur wrote

I'm aware. It's a precursor, we don't actually know where the line is for AGI.

1

Shiningc OP t1_je67axg wrote

And why do you think companies are using their own computing power to lease the AI? Because they know that it's just something that is "moderately useful", but not revolutionary.

The "AI" can't exactly answer questions in a unique way like "How do I outsmart and destroy Microsoft?". If it was a smart person, then maybe he/she could. So would a company lease a smart person, even if it made them money?

1

ovirt001 t1_je67kko wrote

Yes, to the highest bidder. A "smart person" equivalent AI is still a very long way from 10,000 average people.

1

Shiningc OP t1_je67p5i wrote

But no company actually leases a smart person. It would want to keep the smart person loyal to the company and working for the company.

1

ovirt001 t1_je68vab wrote

As long as the "smart person" is making money, they aren't going to care. Using that smart person to dominate all industries would be ludicrously difficult and put the company at a disadvantage to any other company that has a similar "smart person" but chooses to lease their time.

1

Shiningc OP t1_je692xt wrote

I think that would be called a "brain drain" or "poaching". I mean sure they can do that, but it's short-sighted and won't be good for them in the long run.

It might be possible for the companies to lease the "dumb" AGIs but keep all the "smart" ones to themselves. But at this point it's basically a slave trade.

1

ovirt001 t1_je69lyg wrote

It could be considered consultancy if the AGI is capable of individual thought. Companies have some longer-term objectives but tend to focus their efforts on short-term gains to please investors.
There will be plenty of discussion around the ethics of using AGI in business. Whether it can be called "slavery" will depend on how like a human AGI turns out to be.

1