TFenrir t1_j1rrbr5 wrote
Two things:
-
The only reason that the rich would have for keeping it out of the hands of the non rich is that it would somehow negatively impact them if the non rich had this technology.
-
The nature of much of this AI doesn't lend itself to being restricted very easily. It's too reproducible, given enough time. It would require the synchronized efforts of people and governments across the world to keep it out of the hands of the select few
The reason why the rich have things that we (I'm putting myself in the category of non rich, but compared to some in the world I'm incredibly wealthy) don't have isn't primarily because they don't want us to have it, but because those things cost more money than we can afford, and they have no problems affording it.
Removing the barrier of cost generally makes things accessible to everyone - this is why smartphones are prolific, for example, even in the developing world.
QuietOil9491 t1_j1sgavm wrote
Who do you think sets the costs????? 🤔🤔🤔
solidwhetstone t1_j1subyy wrote
That's a good point and a reason why open source has to be the way forward for ai.
AnonymousInterloper t1_j1twmot wrote
The market, usually. Please drop the conspiracy innuendo, it's not as edgy as you think it is...
solomongothhh t1_j1sv78v wrote
manufacturing and raw material cost
Conservative-Hippie t1_j1ten8w wrote
Supply and demand interactions.
mocha_sweetheart OP t1_j1rt6qv wrote
Yes, but who’s to say the barrier of cost will be taken down? It’s not as easily reproducible as you say, training it takes tons of data and computing power etc.
For all we know if things like posthumanism etc. become real they might as well just charge an unreasonable price and only the select few will get it, leading to a gattaca-like scenario in real life. These sorts of dystopias are a genuine possibility with the advancements we’re seeing.
TFenrir t1_j1rzvio wrote
>Yes, but who’s to say the barrier of cost will be taken down? It’s not as easily reproducible as you say, training it takes tons of data and computing power etc.
It's easy enough, we have for example about a dozen open source language models that we can run, and the quality of them improves even as their size decreases (Flan-T5 is a good example). We can also see that with image models - cheaper, faster, and more variety. We already have quite a few different models, not including fine tuned off shoots.
And even for new models today, the costs are measured in the hundreds of thousands to millions. Those costs, while not cheap enough for me to build, are still incredibly cheap. And it will get cheaper to build the same models as techniques improve and hardware improves, there's no reason that trend wouldn't continue.
> For all we know if things like posthumanism etc. become real they might as well just charge an unreasonable price and only the select few will get it, leading to a gattaca-like scenario in real life. These sorts of dystopias are a genuine possibility with the advancements we’re seeing.
But that's a fear based conclusion, not something you are really coming to from an informed place. This isn't how technology has worked so far, and technology has made us all more "powerful", the internet, smartphones, and now these models. Why assume that at some arbitrary point this will suddenly no longer be possible? Why assume that the world is filled with mustache twirling rich villains?
Cryptizard t1_j1rxto1 wrote
>For all we know if things like posthumanism etc. become real they might as well just charge an unreasonable price and only the select few will get it
Why don't only rich people have electric cars or sweet gaming computers or literally any other new technology? Because they want to make money and they can make more money and be more rich by selling that shit to the public. It is called capitalism.
TFenrir t1_j1s00ig wrote
And yes, this is maybe the greatest point. If any of this technology can be monetized, people are incentivized to make it cheap enough for having as many customers as possible.
Gotisdabest t1_j1sn4a5 wrote
I guess this argument works in a setting where gradual change occurs, but taking the end point only, in a theoretical post scarcity world(for the rich) there's no real incentive to spread this tech. I agree that at least relatively gradual growth is far more likely and hence we are going to get the incremental improvements at the same time as them, but it's worth noting that capitalism isn't exactly the best answer to the question of what helps the people when capitalism breaks down
Mastermind1776 t1_j1tn686 wrote
My main critique of your premise (though I could be misunderstanding your point) is that even in a post scarcity society with capitalist elements (for the rich) there will always be a use for more money. Post-scarcity (based on my understanding of the term) mainly applies to all basic needs being taken care of, but there will likely be some exotic desires that still have some monetary or cultural limits placed in it.
However, what often seems to drive the rich is building net worth in order to start new businesses in new marketing niches. All it takes is one entrepreneur to mass market the AI/singularity/post-human tech and scale it to the rest of the populations at an appropriate price. Another avenue is if a capable entrepreneur or group open sources the tech and it scales in a DIY-type way.
The rich and powerful are heterogenous (like the rest of us) in their motivations so all it takes is one soul to break the mold and “tradition” and give accessible access to the tech. This is under the assumption that the tech doesn’t have some fundamental aspect that makes it impossible to scale the cost down or distribute it widely.
Gotisdabest t1_j1tpsxr wrote
>mainly applies to all basic needs being taken care of, but there will likely be some exotic desires that still have some monetary or cultural limits placed in it.
In an ai manufactured post scarcity it's quite likely that more or less every desire will be taken care of. Cultural limits, quite possibly, but those can't be fixed with any kind of money when the person you're selling to has no desires.
>The rich and powerful are heterogenous (like the rest of us) in their motivations so all it takes is one soul to break the mold and “tradition” and give accessible access to the tech.
The thing is that in a rate of progress so fast, chances are that a remarkably select few may be in charge while the rest are simply unable to cope with the change. There will essentially be no new niche to conquer in terms of business. Once we hit basic post scarcity more extensive post scarcity won't really be far behind, and then power will be the only possible commodity, lying with those who may decide to abuse it or exclude others from it(it is quite reasonable to think that the rich class does include an abnormally high number of empathy lacking people in general).
72414dreams t1_j1smhse wrote
Only rich people have flying cars, private islands, nesting doll yachts, private jets. In a very real sense the future is already here, it just isn’t very evenly distributed.
BuscadorDaVerdade t1_j1ua9j5 wrote
Private islands are nothing futuristic. Medieval kings had those too. Flying cars and private jets are expensive to manufacture. If they were cheap like smartphones, more people would have them, although we might run into issues with air space scarcity.
TheDavidMichaels t1_j1rzuh8 wrote
This is childish. The trend of compute power continuing to trend towards zero cost will continue!!! With compute power continuing to trend towards zero cost and the models already out there for free, millions are using it for free, paid for by someone!! Are there evil people? Yes, but that's just half the world. There is another half that acts to help
ThoughtSafe9928 t1_j1s9m4o wrote
"For all we know once the Internet becomes powerful enough the elites will just use it to communicate with one another and only benefit themselves." - Some guy in 1994, probably.
mocha_sweetheart OP t1_j1ttli8 wrote
Examples of rich keeping technologies to themselves... Insulin in the US a patent sold for 1 dollar and now insulin is marked up hundreds of dollars, the patent system etc.
ThoughtSafe9928 t1_j1ttw2p wrote
Both examples you provided are very clearly not the same as AI or Internet aka transformative technologies.
You literally can’t limit “post-singularity” benefits to one thing. that’s like saying “cure to cancer”. sure, there may at one point be a singular cure to the thousands of diseases called “cancer”, but there’s still going to be individual cures that are immensely helpful. open source stable diffusion vs openAI Dall-E is a great current example of why you can’t possibly expect this technology to be limited somehow.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments