←back to thread

Interview with gwern

(www.dwarkeshpatel.com)
308 points synthmeat | 1 comments | 14 Nov 24 08:56 UTC | HN request time: 0.211s | source
Show context
camillomiller ◴[14 Nov 24 10:17 UTC] No.42134738[source]▶
I really don’t understand why we give credit to this pile of wishful thinking about the AI corporation with just one visionary at the top.

First: actual visionary CEOs are a niche of a niche. Second: that is not how most companies work. The existence of the workforce is as important as what the company produces Third: who will buy or rent those services or products in a society where the most common economy driver (salaried work) is suddenly wiped out?

I am really bothered by these systematic thinkers whose main assumption is that the system can just be changed and morphed willy nilly as if you could completely disregard all of the societal implications.

We are surrounded by “thinkers” who are actually just glorified siloed-thinking engineers high on their own supply.

replies(2): >>42134777 #>>42135214 #
kryptiskt ◴[14 Nov 24 11:35 UTC] No.42135214[source]▶
I don't get it, why have a human visionary CEO? Even the strongest critics of AI agree that LLMs excel at producing bold visions.
replies(1): >>42135286 #
1. Philpax ◴[14 Nov 24 11:46 UTC] No.42135286[source]▶
Gwern's (paraphrased) argument is that an AI is unlikely to be able to construct an extended bold vision where the effects won't be seen for several years, because that requires a significant amount of forecasting and heuristics that are difficult to optimise for.

I haven't decided whether I agree with it, but I can see the thought behind it: the more mechanical work will be automated, but long-term direction setting will require more of a thoughtful hand.

That being said, in a full-automation economy like this, I imagine "AI companies" will behave very differently to human companies: they can react instantly to events, so that a change in direction can be affected in hours or days, not months or years.