Your three things might not be as unrelated as they seem at first -- well, the first two points, that is.
Peter Thiel owns Palantir.
And his whole personal belief ("religion") is that the machines are our salvation; they will do all the work, cure cancer, solve all our problems -- and we should embrace that (and sit around reading books and eating grapes, I guess).
So running further with your excellent summary:
- US approach to AI is incredibly expensive. Those in the field are earning outrageous salaries, supposedly because this tech is just, well, the Holy Grail (since we seem to be on religious themes!).
- But that's also showing that the AI-bros haven't been able to figure out how to make money with the tech. It's certainly HELPING businesses that use it, but not in ways that suddenly have a mom and pop corner store earning millions (neither is it adding that value to larger companies). It's helping with certain efficiencies, but not enormous game-changers (for the cost).
- The Chinese -- the "evil empire that's trying to be the dominant player (vs USA)" seem to be coming up with decent parallel tech, but for a FRACTION of the cost! (this leads one to question if the USA tech is really worth all that Altman, Thiel, Musk, etc. are saying its worth).
- the AI industry is the one sector that's keeping the whole US economy "booming" -- without it, their economy would be just "limping along" (not much different than Canada's, or Europe's). So if the AI sector is over-valued . . . .
- The Chinese model is entirely concerned about SUPPORTING human workers, not replacing them (the USA model is trying to sell itself by convincing businesses that they will save MOST of their labour costs, or that that freed-up labour will "add unlocked value, because they aren't doing drudgery"). While the US view does have some truth to it (the adding value), it's got a greater chance that it will replace workers primarily, leaving just a few to "add the value." China is very concerned about not replacing the workers, I think for obvious reasons: They would have to somehow financially support the workers, and (an important point about totalitarian governments), those workers will likely revolt! The USA, well, I'd say it would be a certainty that workers will revolt -- there's a reason Theil has moved to Argentina! ;-)
Interesting that you brought up the Utah proposal -- that initiative is a Kevin O'Leary project! I think they largely ran him out of the state, last I heard.
What I find most interesting is that the conversation has shifted from "Can AI do this?" to "Who pays for it, who controls it, and who benefits from it?"
That's a very different debate.
The technology keeps improving, but the business model, energy demands, and labour impacts are still very much works in progress.
The next few years may tell us more about the economics of AI than the technology itself.
Yeah, we need to apologize for that export (O'Leary). Many of us don't want him back, either, though, so I'm not sure what to do about him. Maybe he'll join Theil in Argentina.
Excellent summary of what AI is costing us. I personally, as a post-secondary educator, have nothing but fear about how AI is going to replace people who do any education job. AI may seem like a boon to some, but I am quite content to simply rely on my own brain. Plus, as a scientist, AI never, ever, gives credit for its source information. So I simply don't trust that it even gets its 'facts' right.
That lack of sourcing is one of my biggest concerns too, Leslie.
AI can sound completely confident while being completely wrong, which is dangerous enough in ordinary conversation and far worse in education or science.
I use it as a tool, not an authority.
The human still has to question it, verify it, and take responsibility for the result.
Your three things might not be as unrelated as they seem at first -- well, the first two points, that is.
Peter Thiel owns Palantir.
And his whole personal belief ("religion") is that the machines are our salvation; they will do all the work, cure cancer, solve all our problems -- and we should embrace that (and sit around reading books and eating grapes, I guess).
So running further with your excellent summary:
- US approach to AI is incredibly expensive. Those in the field are earning outrageous salaries, supposedly because this tech is just, well, the Holy Grail (since we seem to be on religious themes!).
- But that's also showing that the AI-bros haven't been able to figure out how to make money with the tech. It's certainly HELPING businesses that use it, but not in ways that suddenly have a mom and pop corner store earning millions (neither is it adding that value to larger companies). It's helping with certain efficiencies, but not enormous game-changers (for the cost).
- The Chinese -- the "evil empire that's trying to be the dominant player (vs USA)" seem to be coming up with decent parallel tech, but for a FRACTION of the cost! (this leads one to question if the USA tech is really worth all that Altman, Thiel, Musk, etc. are saying its worth).
- the AI industry is the one sector that's keeping the whole US economy "booming" -- without it, their economy would be just "limping along" (not much different than Canada's, or Europe's). So if the AI sector is over-valued . . . .
- The Chinese model is entirely concerned about SUPPORTING human workers, not replacing them (the USA model is trying to sell itself by convincing businesses that they will save MOST of their labour costs, or that that freed-up labour will "add unlocked value, because they aren't doing drudgery"). While the US view does have some truth to it (the adding value), it's got a greater chance that it will replace workers primarily, leaving just a few to "add the value." China is very concerned about not replacing the workers, I think for obvious reasons: They would have to somehow financially support the workers, and (an important point about totalitarian governments), those workers will likely revolt! The USA, well, I'd say it would be a certainty that workers will revolt -- there's a reason Theil has moved to Argentina! ;-)
Interesting that you brought up the Utah proposal -- that initiative is a Kevin O'Leary project! I think they largely ran him out of the state, last I heard.
Good points, Grant.
What I find most interesting is that the conversation has shifted from "Can AI do this?" to "Who pays for it, who controls it, and who benefits from it?"
That's a very different debate.
The technology keeps improving, but the business model, energy demands, and labour impacts are still very much works in progress.
The next few years may tell us more about the economics of AI than the technology itself.
Yeah, we need to apologize for that export (O'Leary). Many of us don't want him back, either, though, so I'm not sure what to do about him. Maybe he'll join Theil in Argentina.
😂 Canada has been trying to return Kevin O'Leary to sender for years now, but apparently the warranty expired.
At this point, I think he's become an international shipping problem.
Excellent points. I too apologize for O'Leary; he is an abomination. Send him to Mars.............lol
Keep by pushing the back til they are destroyed
Excellent summary of what AI is costing us. I personally, as a post-secondary educator, have nothing but fear about how AI is going to replace people who do any education job. AI may seem like a boon to some, but I am quite content to simply rely on my own brain. Plus, as a scientist, AI never, ever, gives credit for its source information. So I simply don't trust that it even gets its 'facts' right.
That lack of sourcing is one of my biggest concerns too, Leslie.
AI can sound completely confident while being completely wrong, which is dangerous enough in ordinary conversation and far worse in education or science.
I use it as a tool, not an authority.
The human still has to question it, verify it, and take responsibility for the result.
That part should never be outsourced.
You may be right that the biggest risk isn't the technology itself but the mindset behind it.
What strikes me is how often history gets treated as optional.
Every generation believes its tools are different, yet the pattern repeats... speed first, consequences later.
AI could become one of humanity's greatest tools.
It could also become another example of our habit of chasing capability without asking where we're headed.
The technology doesn't worry me nearly as much as the assumption that wisdom automatically arrives with intelligence.
History suggests otherwise.
I completely agree. Well said.
I suspect the truth will end up somewhere between the hype and the doom.
History is full of technologies that were oversold in the short term and transformative in the long term.
What I find interesting isn't whether a machine can perform twenty quadrillion calculations per second.
It's whether we're asking it to solve the right problems.
Computing power has never been humanity's biggest shortage.
Wisdom, judgment, and incentives have always been much harder to scale.