It’s the first revolutionary technology that his first goal is to make money for VC investors instead of really change the world, the perceived benefit for society is just a sub-product of the ponzi scheme behind those VC firms.
Exactly. The tech itself isn't driving the mission --- the funding model is. "AI" right now feels less like the internet in ’95 and more like crypto in 2021: massive hype, vague promises, and any social benefit is incidental to keeping the capital flywheel spinning.
I simply don't agree. I've personally benefited from asking Gemini questions almost every day; I never benefited from crypto, even though I find the mechanisms intriguing and the design beautiful.
It's true that social benefit is incidental to the development of nearly all the big AIs, but that applies to every venture in capitalism.
The list of technological examples in the article are all notable for their economic effects and the first one was enabling factory jobs. The AI revolution is, so far, actually pretty economically mild, small and unprofitable for a tech revolution. Compare it to the industrial revolution was transformation on a scale that is outside the modern experience.
Of course, the assumption is it is going to be a lot bigger as the decades give it time to fully roll out. It is impossible to guess precisely but it'll probably be bigger than the industrial revolution by the time all the 2nd order effects start settling in. We just don't know what it looks like when the entire management and political decision making apparatuses are suddenly stuffed with counterintelligence. It'll be a shock to the system compared to the current leadership.
> It’s the first revolutionary technology that his first goal is to make money for VC investors instead of really change the world
Is that true?
Steam technology and factory machinery were created and used to make the pit, mill, and factory owners more money than with human workers. The railway mania in the 1840s was a period where vast sums of money were invested in railway lines and engine technology.
True, but original electricity stayed the same, even the turbine generators still in use are very similar. (Same with steam power, still in use today.) Batteries are improved but general operation is the same. There's many more devices using it, mostly for the better.
We don't even know if we want LLMs in more devices. Likewise we likely do not want Internet/email in every toaster.
LLMs staying the same would be the death of this technology. Even minor improvements don't matter enough.
Voice activated devices are not necessarily paradigm shifting either. We had these for over 25 years now.
> It is said that in the 1850s, British politician William Ewart Gladstone asked the scientist Michael Faraday why electricity was valuable. Faraday answered, "One day sir, you may tax it."
That admittedly apocryphal anecdote is set 30 years before the turbine you mentioned was invented.
100 percent. The same thing happened with the "Internet". It was amazing when it first started getting popular with the first web browsers in the 90s. There was so much potential with it.
It still can be amazing, more amazing than it was in the 90s. You could make a website this afternoon and host it on your phone. But ~nobody can be bothered, because easier centralised platforms exist.
The problem, if you want to call it that, is purely social/cultural.
Literally every business school and consulting firm wrote articles about how many jobs this stuff was going to displace and how much it would grow the gdp by.
