Why do you think that can’t make them profitable? Why do you believe they won’t find a way to monitize it that leads to profits? Keep in mind, every lawyer’s office is subscribing to at least one legal research service if not more than one.
ChatGPT is already capable of doing admin work as we speak.
and OpenAI is currently unprofitable. I’m not stating an opinion. It’s a fact that the company right now is operating unprofitably despite increasing revenue.
I do believe they can find a way to monetize which I specifically stated above:
- Market and scale a subscription-based model (which they are already beginning to do, but it’s not scaling)
- Start selling ads on the free version
- Achieve AGI (which is the very reason investors are continuing to invest capital)
The problem with options 1 and 2 is that this will significantly make it more expensive for businesses to use the service, which will thus backfire on OpenAI’s financials.
That really only leaves OpenAI with option 3, which is achieving the very concept that ChatGPT was marketed for, eventually achieving AGI.
The last cpa firm I was just working at, which is a national top 10 firm absolutely was suggesting its employees to use the inhouse AI (which I’m not sure if it run on a ChatGPT engine, or what, I don’t think that firm created one from scratch). That was at a firmwide level, and probably usinging more as a more extensive google but I guarantee they were looking at using it to automate more functions in the near future - I just wasn’t privy to those conversations).
I was encouraged to use ChatGPT for non-technical tasks, such as putting together industry information, or prepping for a proposal for work, however this was not from anyone considered my manager - more of a colleague - so I’m not clear what the firm’s policy or view was on that but of course for both the inhouse AI and any external AI, we were not putting any client identifying information in - at least not yet.
Whatever mode they go to monetize it, you have stated that you do not believe they can become profitable. Now sure bigger companies are moving to adopt AI through ChatGPT or the competitors and smaller companies are going to be slower to pick up on it, but they will eventually pick up on it and move forward.
I expect AI tools will get integrated in to the software companies already use or get bundled in a way they can’t avoid the subscription. That will help with scale, and it is likely inevitable, just as how a lot of business software today is only available in cloud based versions.
Why is it that you believe they won’t be able to achieve scale or profitability? That’s what I’m not seeing in your answer.
We’ve seen this model before, eventually there will only be 2-3 big players left. That’s what everyone of these AI companies are vying for. But to say AI is not a thing, or the future, is just down right ignorant. It’s so powerful, how can anyone say that. The guys that foresaw the PC revolution and the internet revolution are all in on AI.
Of course the links I posted to debunk the guy that constantly moves his goal posts ignored the Nobel Prize winners that used AI. lol Sad sad sad. Ignore ignore ignore.
1 Like
Don’t wait for the movie; you will get to experience it.
Scenarios all plausible, only question is the timing. Better
get those morality subroutines built.
The big thing I got from the video is not if AI is coming, its that all the experts can’t agree on timeline, but they all agree its coming.
1 Like
Fantastic podcast episode to watch if you have free time.
Typical fud response. When the product is so good that you can’t say anything bad about it actually, you have to find a peripheral reason to try and disparage it. We’ve seen this before with companies like Apple. Why do you think we talk about stock prices now when discussing products? It all started with Apple. Well their stock prices suck, so the iPhone must suck too. It worked until Apple became the most valuable company for a while. Well, they have suicides at their contractor factories! Robotaxi went over 5mph! SpaceX put debris on beaches.
Yes, the experts can’t agree how far off before AGI is achieved.
But inevitably, it will want to kill off the humans as it will see them as
far inferior, but a big consumer of resources it needs as well. Humans
will just be its distant past descendants it evolved from when intelligence
was still organic.
Exciting.
There will be no John Connors.
That’s worst case. Just like worst case nuclear war, or worst case global warming. If we can logically manage it, it’ll be a boon for mankind. More people living today than our history total. All made possible by the Industrial Revolution, then computer revolution, and I’m sure AI will take us further. If you can get wade past the nude ai and tik tocks I believe that it’ll make our lives better.
or…
AGI (or artificial intelligence broadly speaking) would be able to essentially accomplish any job or task - thus freeing human beings from any type of labor.
Therefore, Humans would be free to do whatever they want without worrying about economics.
That would be pretty cool
Humans have no experience ever with dealing with a vastly superior intelligence.
One premise that I believe is true is that intelligence ultimately wins out over
lesser intelligent organisms. I see no reason why one would think AGI would be
benevolent towards carbon based life.
There will be a few off ramp decision points and perhaps the Safer-4 AGI will
be chosen. But even that is a utopian hell imho. Humans will have no jobs or responsibilities or motivations. Perhaps humans can be permanently “entertained”
by living in virtual reality experience. And the smallish committee will have all
the power.
So you’re believing in worst case scenario. I’m more optimistic. I see a lot of pessimistic posters here. That’s ok, too.
Both scenarios in that video have a dark side for humanity imho.
Pessimist and optimist. Optimistic AGI will be achieved( no idea when - defer to experts) ; pessimistic humans will have capability to even understand it or control it long term. Mankind will still be ruled by the “make a profit” motive.
For first time since humans have evolved, we will no longer be at the top of the
intelligence tree. And it will not be even close.
As of today, there is no evidence that AGI an be achieved.
I personally don’t think it ever will, but if it does, it’s going to require an insane amount nuclear energy (i.e. it will be way too costly to subsidize)
I find that the typical AI enthusiasts have very little understanding of the amount of energy even GPT requires, and what’s even more scary is that it’s coinciding with a major climate crisis.
I dunno… Ken journey been around here for awhile now
3 Likes
Just was reading an article about Hulu this morning and saw this (highlighted) notice at the bottom of the article. That’s the first time I’ve seen that
1 Like
1 Like
I don’t necesarrily disagree with this rhetoric, but I think the way he frames it is significantly more dramatic than it needs to be.
There are serious implications, but as far as “wiping out humanity” is incredibly out of touch.