USA already bet on software when it let China overtake manufacturing.
Now the only worse thing to betting on AI would be slowing it down inside USA.
Groceries are going to get more expensive. Every dollar we spend on over building AI infrastructure is a dollar we never get back.
We could use this money for other things such as healthcare and fixing our broken parts of our education system. Instead people are getting ancy to chat with a summarized version of all the garbage on the internet.
How are cost of living increases tied to AI investment?
Where do you think the tax money being given away to these huge datacenters is going?
What downstream effects does major increase to limited consumer services and goods do across the board?
another example could be someone wants to build an ecosystem monitoring station to monitor the nearby ravine (pollution levels with rainfall and other events etc.) and air quality over time. this is just a small datapoint but if people all over the place build their own ecosystem/weather monitoring things using basic electronics ordered from the internet and all plug them in to a standard observability software system then that could provide some pretty awesome outcomes including figuring the best way to clean polluted water (because some of the places will surely have implemented varying methods of sanitizing their own water).
“Standard observability software” whatever that is also does not require AI to build. We need 10GW to calculate rainfall for who? What benefit over how we currently calculate rainfall? This rainfall is hallucinated through summarization?
How? What are the mechanisms in which AI will lead to farms and greenhouses being more productive? How will AI improve the existing automation that already exists for the farming sector, and has existed for a hundred years?
electronics recycling, disassembling old computers to get the raw materials into a form that can be used again. we'll need programs to automate the production and testing and analysis of the robots that will recycle the components.
That much is obvious. The fact that you’re straining so hard to come up with these bongcloud “ideas” should clue you in that maybe this isn’t the revolutionary tech that the suits are selling it as
there is no evidence of this
as it was said in 1898 by Hilaire Belloc: "Whatever happens, we have got. The Maxim gun, and they have not."
In that case it was the British who had just slaughtered a lot of Matabele in Africa.
> Losing the AI race is an existential threat to our civilization.
Lol. If winning it means a sea of hallucinated "factual" text and deepfake videos, then that death of truth is also a threat. Being rid of that is no threat at all.
In the US, we are terrified of nuclear and the administration is trying to make economically worse energy production the norm because they are stuck in the past.
If there is an AI race, I have zero doubt that China WILL win simply because of energy production and the government's willingness to pour money in. It's a foregone conclusion at this point in my opinion because the time to build new energy sources was yesterday. The only way I see China losing is: major debt crisis or getting into a war.
There is no chance, in my opinion, that the US federal government will get off their butts suddenly to fund AI or infrastructure because they are so busy worrying about less than 1% of the population who don't affect them but that they find 'icky'.
Woke isn't destroying the US, it's the people who are busy ' "judging their neighbors' porches" meanwhile the neighborhood is burning down.
A race to what? What does the winner get? What does the loser get? What does 'winning' even fucking mean? My statistical next token predictor is better than your statistical next token predictor?
Feels like a feedback loop. It's exciting that we're all in on AI because we're all in on AI!
Most major companies have released new versions in the past year, but if people were asked to blindly determine whether they were using the newer or older version, I suspect the results would be close to random. It seems to me that the difference between versions is sharply decreasing in a way that seems to be asymptotic, similar to what happens in literally every other domain with neural networks.
I also think it's clear that the difference between the various choices is also diminishing. Aside from certain manually designed idiosyncrasies (like ChatGPT's obsequiousness), I think people assessing which model they're using would also be mostly random. Somewhat surprisingly, even in the 'LLM arena' [1], where you get to compare output side by side, the difference between models is approaching statistical 0!
[1] - https://huggingface.co/spaces/lmarena-ai/lmarena-leaderboard
But come on, there should be an alternative.
Without diversification, we’re just setting ourselves up for an economic rug pull the moment the AI growth hits the law of large numbers and people realize its not the magic they think it is. Economically? Don’t worry it’ll just be another “oops, your 401k lost a bit, here’s a bailout” moment. AKA, stimulus with sprinkles.
So yeah... keep buying those dips girls and boys.
2023
Call me if you have an act.
Book us if you need to rebuild community.
"${rich_guy} is doomed" will get more clicks than "poor people can now afford 5% more daily protein than last year".
If you remove AI then what is left?
AI
None of this is contradictory.
Even for text, Deepseek R1 was this year, and agentic and coding AI has made progress on length/complexity of tasks. The rise of MoE architecture in the open/local model space has made it possible to run useful models locally on hardware under like $2K, something I didn’t expect for a long time.
Not sure if you’re counting things built on top of the models but if so, coding agents have also come a long way since a year ago.
If true, that's <1% of the population?
Demographics are destiny. Its pretty clear that we'll be taking the accelerated japan route, and the worst of that with japan is the fact that we bailed it out, no ones around to bail us out.
We basically have a generation of children who are now the old, who spurned and wasted the resources given to them in poor stewardship, and who failed to pass them and the advantaged environment on to their children, instead choosing tyrannical to disadvantage their children through control and clutching power to the last of their days and all the destruction that comes thereafter. A fall of empire.
They clutched at the resources so heavily and disadvantaged their own children to the point where significantly less people were in a position to actually be having children themselves, both because of the intolerable and torturous acts which have become so commonplace today but also the resources required to keep the old alive significantly outweighed the resources to foster children. There is an opportunity cost for everything. A Deflationary depopulation is almost inevitable.
What are you referring to?
It is most commonly expressed in process which is designed to isolate, strip of agency, impose cognitive dissonance (through deception and lies), create trauma loops (structured circularly with push-pull dynamics), and utilize sophisticated psychological blindspots that every person has; primarily to induce inconsistent internal states of confusion beneath cognition, which creates psychological stress beyond the point of coping for physiological effect.
Define intolerable and torturous acts rationally by functional element from case studies, you will find the elements in aggregate nearly everywhere you look. That wasn't always the case.
Its under different names, and called different things but the elements are all there. Education, Business, Politics, the sheer number of places is endless. The work of a generation.
For example, Master Data Management is all about creating dossiers of customers for targeting your most profitable customers with extras; while simultaneously reducing finite resources required by basic services that are given to your baseline customer (beyond the point of service failure, just shy of the point of fraud).
Ever wonder about that systemic issue where a ticket you opened, described it properly, and it has a straightforward resolution, but its automatically closed as resolved 20-30 days later with no action taken and no reprimand or escalation path that's effective and it can't be reopened. Or that CSR doom loop where they transfer you so many times taking advantage of the trunk line timeout after a signaling change where the phone disconnects (x minutes after the first signaled transfer), or the lies about higher than normal call volume which aren't actually based on averages and always apply... The loss of some needed benefit because someone decided in error that requirements weren't met for that benefit, depriving you immediately, with no recourse. Like paypall freezing your connected bank account because of a chargeback that was illegitimate on the sellers side.
People blind themselves because this is everywhere, and it shouldn't be, but there is no one capable of stopping it that isn't also more incentivized to continue it for profit.
Who benefits, what recourse, what's required for a rule of law, and what happened in the two decades leading up to 1776 that showed what happens when a rule of law no longer functions.
Coercion is the purposeful application of psychological stress beyond the point of coping to induce outcomes.
While a little funny, if it weren't so close to the truth Agents of Shield got this mostly right except that its everywhere: "Take a deep breath, calm your mind, compliance will be rewarded. Are you willing to comply?"
Or roughly 1% of the current US population.
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-enc...
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/uni...
If you're trying to compete with some country who can do things that you can't and there's nobody to be found who knows how to do the thing, isn't teaching your people the obvious thing to do?
The cost of not doing so will be cumulative, so sooner or later the ROI will be there. It's just a matter of how bad things need to get first. That is, unless there's something else we've got going for us that we can fall back on, but I'm not sure what that thing might be--we've been busy dismantling contenders for the job lately.
But those big companies going out of business won't be how the bubble pops. It'll be the 95% of projects / startups that don't have any ROI.
OAI all over the place and doesnt seem to have a direct thing its focused on executing, which only makes the idea of a bubble more real.
Your argument appears to be that the stock market won't drop because stocks are held by members of the public whose opinions are controlled by technology? Or... that robots are holding the stock?
It doesn't have the rhetorical punch, but my boring traditional economics opinion is that it's probably a bubble because realized profit from these overvalued stocks is too far out in the future to buffer the inevitable liquidity shocks inherent in modern economies. Eventually someone will come up short and have to dump, and we'll get a feedback loop.
But admittedly robots are more fun.
You just need to save the bubble with an even bigger bubble.
Bubbles can grow fine so long as no one wants their money back. But eventually they will, and then valuations will be real. When all these boomers draw their savings and buy themselves annuities, what's going to happen?
One pet theory of mine is that the US market goes up so much because of it's population growth. DM in Europe for example don't see this net inflow of people saving for retirement, instead the pressure is rather pensioners pulling money out.
Eventually though even the US stock market will have a reality check, and who knows what happens then.
This bubble will pop either way, but it could continue like this for years.
If the Tesla Optimus will actually work (big if), you will be able to send that to beat down protests in Portland instead of the National Guard.
it is just simpler to claim that AI is useful hence the investment instead of a roundabout explanation with power.
In Existence, Brin explores a speculative solution to the Fermi Paradox — the question of why we see no signs of extraterrestrial intelligence. The novel suggests that advanced civilizations create memetic or AI-based “message entities” — self-replicating digital ambassadors designed to spread across the galaxy to preserve their creators’ legacy or recruit new species.
This notion applies to other activities -- but basically, when a society puts all its resources to something other than its preservation then it expires in short order.
While many “small” businesses offering similar products compete on a marketplace subject to the law of supply and demand, large centralized monopolies compete for money producing “slots” often allocated through a political process. The political figures in control of these systems are often free from material needs and thus less motivated by profit.
At the extreme of political economy, money ceases to matter in the internal sense. A state can simply order workers to work without pay or be punished, burn debt that they don’t want to pay, or lock traders into a room with orders to buy. There is still an economy, but it becomes one of political favor which is earned through multiple mechanisms.
Without irony, this is my observation for how corporations work internally. The currency between teams is backscratching.
The USSR was a big corporation with a license of coercive force.
The GDP increases are fake. Mining Bitcoin produces nothing, in fact the money supply should not be increased to match the fake GDP increase. The same is true for "AI".
The current boom has basically had nothing to do with any government efforts. It is booming in spite of the current administration. This is all private industry.
The administration facilitates "AI" exports:
https://www.iaps.ai/research/promoting-the-stack-trumps-ai-e...
It removes environmental regulations:
https://apnews.com/article/national-environmental-policy-act...
For the Nvidia bubble, it has recently lifted export regulations to China.
It facilitates meetings of "Open" "AI" with world leaders and almost certainly exerts pressure with tariffs etc. behind the scenes to force these deals.
It keeps talking up "AI", which helps the bubble.
You must have missed the federal governments 500B “stargate” project
Actual real life case studies that people can point to where they deployed it and it all went great are actually very hard to come by. It was only the other week that there was that study that said the number was as low as I think they said like 5% or something.
No shortage of excitement though, but a lot of things seem to be riding on some big breakthroughs coming down the pipeline that may never arrive.
Can’t you just use your AI-supercharged productivity to build them? What’s the bottleneck here?
It'll take a while to fix what the last admin broke and correct course, but Rome wasn't built in a day. Imagine what we could have accomplished with 8 uninterrupted years, but that's water under the bridge. American's learned their lesson from that debacle, and here we are. We'll get there, and it will be a much better place for everyone of any class, not just the "elites" that try to divide the lower classes.
I fail to find any plausible explanation for this other than the fact that yes, it is a bubble. Tesla, a car company facing declining sales, an executive exodus, and a CEO who’s more of a liability, is almost a $1.5T company now. An absurd P/E of 259. Sure, P/E isn't the most realiable metric. But, for a company with declining sales, and onslaught from Chinese competitors, a P/E of anything above 50 is absolutely ludicrous. Do people actually buy into the absurdity of humanoid robots and robotaxis?
"Be fearful when everyone is greedy." I’ve cashed out of U.S. stocks, and I think it's wise thing to do when craze is at its peak.
Have you ever taken a Waymo? You see them on every street in SF now.
It remains to be seen whether robotaxis can 1. scale outside of certain cities 2. make a profit given the apparent teams of actual human remote drivers that robotaxi companies employ to get their robots out of trouble. I would love to see it, but the lack of speed and momentum points to it having some serious growing pains.
In any case, the "can it make money" question is still unanswered (at least according to Waymo as of March). https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/20/waymo-ceo-tekedra-mawakana-1...
Man I can tell you 99.9999% of people in real life outside of silicon valley tech hubs do not give a single shit about these things. City dwellers are already so disconnected from reality, but silicon valley takes it to a whole other level.
Only terminally online tech solutionists get a hard on for these things
I have. Intrinsic valuation and pricing are not the same thing.
The man who said the thing you are quoting also repeatedly advised never to bet against America, and to never try to time the market...
I think he'd say he's more into pricing things than timing - he probably thinks the market is expensive.
> The hundreds of billions of dollars companies are investing in AI now account for an astonishing 40 per cent share of US GDP growth this year.
In other words, investment in AI is a massive private-sector stimulus program, powering economic growth.
Questions for which no one knows the answer include:
* Will these AI investments earn a positive rate of return in the aggregate?
* Without these investments on AI and their second-order economic effects, would the US economy be growing?
* Are the higher-order effects of AI investments temporary, or can they become self-sustaining (for example, via creation of new jobs and industries)?
It's only 40% of the growth so.. yes.
For example, companies that build new giant data centers for AI pay salaries to thousands of temporary construction workers who then spend some of it on retail goods and services. That additional spending by the workers is a second-order effect, and it shows up on GDP growth. There are higher-order effects too, but they are more diffuse.
Another way to look at this is asking if AI investments get wiped out, would they take down GDP growth with them? I think there would be a pull back across the board. I will speculate that without AI investment juicing growth, we would have seen broad investment pullbacks in the 2nd quarter, and a shrinking GDP.
On the upside, even if AI is a bubble and implodes spectacularly we're going to have metric tons of compute available for climate models, drug discovery and anything else that requires a super computer to model.
I personally would implement it as a "civilian military" to make it a cool high-status line of work that people might choose for a few years out of civic duty. Uniforms, ranks, bases, parades, you get your food/housing provided, you get 'deployed' on projects. Get your college paid for if you stay on long enough.
Then I remember I just did a weeks worth of work in a few hours and feel a lot better about my prospects at least.
AI won't replace people, but it will make people who know how to use it vastly more efficient. In the same way that a tractor made a farmer more efficient.
You also don't account for the infinite flow of slop being generated 100x faster than any productive work: "Deloitte to pay money back to Albanese government after using AI in $440,000 report", https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45500485
How much money, resource and time is spent on generating/hosting/discussing/cleaning up this slop ? How much of social distrust is created by LLM generated sociopolitcal discussions online ? &c.
Tractors undoubtedly increase farmer efficiency, the evidence is clear to see, even when accounting for all costs necessary to design and produce tractors. There’s even room for farmers and tractor manufacturers to generate economic profit.
That remains to be seen of AI.
I would honestly probably be willing to pay $75-100 for ChatGPT if it came down to it. I feel it makes some tedious jobs a lot less horrible and in turn pays for itself.
Aren’t small independent farms struggling because of debt loads are really small returns?
Is this what AI will do as well? Enable large players consolidate while anything bigger than hobby work becomes very difficult and expensive for individuals.
I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s relevant. Most of my adult life has followed a pattern: I work on a personal project until I get blocked on some bullshit detail (e.g. some arcane Linux server error), get annoyed because I am not making money and the project is no longer fun, and give up on the project about halfway through.
Being able to paste server logs and weird error messages and having ChatGPT generate recovery scripts has been extremely valuable to me. I am not even sure it’s necessarily reducing my workload, but it has absolutely allowed me to focus much more interesting and fun parts, and I finish a much larger percentage of my projects.
I am probably not learning as much as I would if I had powered through the issue, but I am definitely learning more than if I had abandoned it.
The fact we haven’t fully automated everything in ~3 years seems to be the proof this isn’t really happening. It takes at least a decade to iron out how a new technology fits into things how to exploit it efficiently, and this specific technology requires a lot of subtle research and building tooling and infrastructural code, processes, and techniques we’ve never built before. It also has a large physical infrastructure requirement.
However for those manual tasks above (effectively any sort of coding, classification, labeling, task oriented data work) my experience is LLMs have much higher precision and recall at any scale of work without labor issues around hiring and ramp up/idle time, let alone cost. I’m not saying this is good - but it is absolutely true and in my last two jobs we’ve eliminated massive numbers of roles for people and we are just beginning in the cycle and not very mature. By the end I expect as many as 20k+ reduced, maybe much much more, from my current company in these sorts of roles.
1) the average American is heavily dependent on equities in their 401k for retirement,
2) so the stock market has to go up,
3) but the stock market is already at record valuations and it's difficult to see how forecasted growth levels justify the current valuation let alone an increased valuation,
4) without revenue growth, the only way for companies to sustain EPS growth is massive reduction in costs,
5) labor is the primary cost for most companies,
6) in come the AI folks telling CEOs that "AI can replace most of their workforce",
7) and so as the article states, everyone goes all in and "America is one big bet on AI"
That leaves us with only 2 possibilities - AI either replaces a significant part of the workforce or it does not. If it does not, the bubble bursts and the economy crashes. If it does, the economy still crashes because consumer spending is 70% of GDP and if the majority of the population becomes unemployed then spending collapses.
I don't think people have realized the latter (or at least they're deliberately choosing to ignore it). That said, I believe the former is more likely (AI not replacing the majority of the workforce in the near future). Either way, buckle up.
More concretely, they can use this situation to squeeze more productivity out of those who remain employed. With the consumer tapped out of discretionary time, attention and spending power, the remaining way to grow profits is to lower overhead.
Equities are not the only asset class in existence and in any market people can sell just as easily as they can buy.
Not to mention, in addition to the GFC, it took the stock market until 1954 to recover the 1929 highs and in Japan it took until 2024 to recover from the 1989 crash, so there are clear examples where the stock market doesn't always go up for very long periods of time.
https://www.fullstackeconomics.com/p/the-2000s-housing-bubbl...
housing related supply-side problems are simply very hard to address whereas everybody and their dog is pumping money into the market (cheap loans to help families, singles, poor people, cheap loans to developers, and anyone who wants, because it's low risk anyway, and companies are doing CoL adjustments, and then there are spillover effects from big metro areas, and foreign investors ...)
and US population was growing, and construction starts were and are still low (historically but compared to the "pent up" demand)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HOUST
of course the problem is that simply pouring money into housing without transportation infrastructure just leads to even more problems, so it's really a problems bubble! (always has been.)
close, but you see, part of the plan is also that immigration is basically shut off. so the majority of the population laid off from their office jobs will have plenty of work to do in the fields and food processing plants if they want to eat.
We're already seeing governments shaming and gaslighting their citizens as they try to find ways to pay for programs to support as many as possible, saying they don't want to work anymore, they're lazy and have to be given everything, pre-chewed.... When you make it nearly impossible for humans to find worth and purpose by exchanging labor for pay, you devalue any contributions they could have and are racing to a future where most of what humans have to give, outside of original creative thought, and art, which AI can do too so it depend on others willing to find value in it, then you're not left with a whole lot. Most of the population aren't self starting entrepreneurs with an infinite drive for wealth and who want to sacrifice everything for a job. Many just seek stability and want to find something they can be at least ok at and can repeat and provide for themselves and their family. By making jobs that much harder to get, you're adding barriers for most to find work. Many countries have been spoiled by stability for so long, their populations don't view survival as a "fight", maybe a struggle, but not a fight for life. Soon it'll be a fight, if not all out war, and almost no one will be ready for that. IF the economy and government (under whatever system and name you want to call it) was setup to provide for all, knowing all the wealth was centralized and they had a mandate to redistribute resources so all could be comfortable, it would be a different story, and even then, but its not the case. A time is coming soon where companies will start losing customers because customer's spending power will disappear. Companies will have optimized themselves out of a path for future growth by destroying their customer base.
Younger generations are already looking at a future vastly different from the one we saw or thought we'd see. Most things older generations took for granted are literally out of reach. Some older people literally expect younger people to just toughen up and just work hard and make it happen, since they did. Easy to say when their education cost them a couple summers worth of income + maybe a side job. The next generation paid their student loans over years, then decades, some pretty much for life. Now its not just education, owning a home is now out of reach of a lot of people. So now if you have the guts to take on an education, you're dealing with potentially decades of student loans, average homes in the US have gone from around $140,000 to $500,000 over the past 20 years, while incomes adjusted for inflation has grown roughly 12.7% between 2003 and 2023, or roughly 0.6% a year. Add on to that the extra cost of other new necessities the picture is looking very different. Life is more and more equating to financial slavery. Used to be any job enabled you to provide necessities for a family, now unless you live in the middle of nowhere, its harder and harder to even get started. AI is already causing cuts to entry level lobs, thinning out the pipeline for future senior employees..
Its going to be fun they said... Its going to be glorious they said...
One thing for sure, its the people who will pay the price during the adjustment period.
> 2) so the stock market has to go up
This is why I've come to despise 401k's replacing old-school pensions. Yes, pensions had their problems but with 401k's workers must fleece themselves to have any sort of retirement opportunity.
Want a shot at retirement? Now we all have to run ourselves into the ground to make number go up. It's insane.
These are two sides of the same coin.
I think this “rapid growth at all costs” is going to bite us, and I think it is possible that it’s going to bite us even more than the .Com bubble or the 2008 crash.
I really hope I am wrong, but I don’t see we can expect companies to keep growing if we don’t require them to be profitable.
Making money was already a problem, what we should strive for is creating value. You can make big bucks selling cigarettes, leaded gas or PFAS riddled products... the money is made but you're still a net negative for society
A decade or two ago, I'd have told you the companies that are building new technologies (smartphones, streaming services, etc) were creating value.
I don't think that at all anymore, even retroactively.
This is fortunately a problem that economics has already solved: value is what people are willing to pay for. Any other definition involves imposing someone's own subjective judgement on what's valuable.
Needless to say, I don't agree with your definition or your idea that it's solved.
"Value" to the individual is subjective, and defined by the price people are willing and able to pay. Its "solved" in the sense that modern economics universally accepts it.
The harder part are the second order effects / negative externalities (e.g. cancer from cigarettes). But it’s a constant balancing act between over- and under-regulation. On a more general level this was represented all the way back in Adam Smith's work. i.e. I don't think it unfair to say value and regulation is a conceptually solved problem, irrespective of the constant attempts to undermine it.
The OP I was replying to brings the notion that money and value aren't the same thing. If someone disagrees with that premise, then maybe they should reply to OP.
I feel like I’m getting old saying this, but no, I was there and the entire tech community went hard against smartphones, claiming they would never be better than a Pocket PC or a Palm Pilot and were simply another marketing ploy by Apple.
They claimed that they were inferior to purpose built MP3 players, no one would ever pay hundreds of dollars for a phone, real software developers didn’t write apps, wireless data would never scale, etc. As far as I know all those comments are still preserved for posterity in places like Slashdot.
Whatever axe you have to grind against the smartphone naysayers of the time... I have no horse in that race.
Cigarettes and leaded gas are bad and a net negative on the world, but they aren’t Ponzi schemes in the same way that so many tech companies are.
Thats it.
Yes there's a whole bunch of financial engeering to create "losses" for tax reasons etc. but ultimately value added is profit.
I think this can be said about nearly every Blockchain startup, for example.
I think its a bit like trains in the 1800s. Plenty of overspending, plenty of speculation that went bust, but in a lot of ways the country was better for all the madness.
Railroad boom. Most of spending moving heart to build out rail network that increase CONUS rail by +400%. US freight backbone. 50+ year infra. Upgrade signal etc and improve network capacity.
Dotcom Boom. Most of spending in moving earth to build out ~150m of fiber. Agnostic pipes for backbone of internet. Also 50+ year infra. Upgrade switches at nodes to increase network capacity.
AI boom. Most of investment going into chips with <5 year deprecation cycle. Datacenters <10 years, heavily specialized for AI use, i.e. power/cooling makes it inefficient/not economic for general compute.
Looking like ~20% goes to eletricfication capex (if it gets built at all). That's the stranded asset i.e. consolation prize, ~10% (generous) increase in US electrification, which isn't nothing, but also not substantial.
Also consider Tulip mania. Tulips die in a few weeks. All value gone.
TLDR potentially bulk of AI investment is closer to tulips in terms of deprecated / stranded assets past medium term i.e. <10 years, than rail or fiber.
It's that it could succeed.
Loosing the bet will only mean lots of ultra rich people have wasted tons of money - winning it means the average person, wherever they're American, Chinese, Russian or European (or wherever else you wanna list) will be fucked... And the ultra rich will be the only beneficiaries.
But nothing makes me think AGI is achievable through LLMs alone, so I guess I don't mind that bet too much. It's just a question of time when it fails - and the failure will likely not be completely catastrophic, as there is actual value in LLMs, albeit much less then the market is valuing it.
saubeidl•13h ago