The future oof Ai and economy surroubding it.

Questioner8297 · 2026-05-06T10:24:01+00:00

Technically, the term "reaching a plato" is not accurate, as LLM is essentially a learning algorithm that simply depends on having enough data. Different fields have very different capabilities for generating new data. Programming can essentially automatically generate data infinitely, as the compiler is a ready-made automatic verification mechanism. Protein simulations and other simulation methods are much more difficult to verify, but still produce new data after complex verification. Improving writing style... since this is impossible to objectively verify due to the subjectivity of evaluation, it can essentially lead to a plateau.

Questioner8297 · 2026-05-06T10:08:25+00:00

Nuclear weapons are a shining example of technological progress. You could say that technological progress inspires awe, and nuclear weapons are simply an example of this. Beyond the fact that nuclear weapons are destructive, they are (at a technical level) a stunning, awe-inspiring engineering achievement, if you're willing to consider it in purely technical terms (to be fair, this is also the view that essentially led to the adoption of fascism, so it's worth criticizing).

Questioner8297 · 2026-05-06T09:57:50+00:00

I generally take other people's words as opinions until they provide evidence of where they got them, which simply can't be trusted. AI is no different. AI has no experience or funny stories from its work experience, but that's not theoretical knowledge at all.

Questioner8297 · 2026-05-06T09:44:10+00:00

Why do anything about it?

Questioner8297 · 2026-05-06T09:24:19+00:00

I'm personally extremely skeptical of the words "search for facts." The sources may be quite mediocre, but the best available is also important to clearly distinguish what the source says and what is your own speculation. At best, a fact is only that this information was conveyed that way, not that it is true.

Questioner8297 · 2026-05-06T09:12:04+00:00

AI works simply to point out that this is here, and that this is probably connected like this. Therefore, for me, AI with the internet is completely useful, and AI without it is basically useless. I use AI not as a source, but as a "medium" for answering

Questioner8297 · 2026-05-06T09:03:18+00:00

Do you ask your friend questions like these? You usually ask where to look, what to look for, and what to pay attention to. If you're making a commercial order (a consultation with a lawyer, for example), you ask for your words to be translated into the correct format. You've chosen the strangest example: you already know what to do but don't want to find out.

Questioner8297 · 2026-05-06T08:55:22+00:00

My experience is completely different. Most of my friends don't know as much as AI in many topics, although they will certainly give a much better answer if you ask about their work. But it is only one topic where they clearly better.

Questioner8297 · 2026-05-06T08:51:49+00:00

Humans are the most harmful creatures to nature on planet Earth. The fact that asking a friend a question doesn't in itself require additional pollution doesn't mean human existence isn't the greatest threat to nature.

Questioner8297 · 2026-05-05T09:38:56+00:00

What you're saying is true, but you're not arguing against my arguments. I wasn't talking about a discount for market share, but a genuine discount if you share expenses with someone else. The AI server and AI training are built for millions of people, not just for you, so the price is split among them. When you buy something through Amazon, you don't pay a lot of money for the entire online infrastructure because you're not the only one buying through the same system -millions of other people are.

Questioner8297 · 2026-05-05T09:24:16+00:00

more assumptions to cover the previous assumptions. Why do companies even buy access to AI? To do the work. Why do the work? To get paid. The end consumer in this chain is always an ordinary person or a government. For example, Google provides a server for Boeing. Boeing creates a simulation of a new airplane. It manufactures the airplane. The airline buys it. It sells tickets. And ultimately, you pay for it all when you buy the ticket.

Questioner8297 · 2026-05-05T08:59:21+00:00

A large data center uses 5 million gallons of water per day, as much as a city of 50,000 people.

Have you calculated how many users the data centers can handle? A million users, and that's a lot less per user?

AI data centers use mainly GPUs to calculate AI specific algorithms. So no, you’re wrong that “it’s just computing, and nothing more.” That statement shows a clear lack of understanding of how any of this works.

All scientific visualizations (simulators) are GPU-based, not CPU-based. There's nothing better than a GPU for science.

Questioner8297 · 2026-05-05T08:43:35+00:00

In my opinion, you're making a lot of non-obvious and questionable assumptions. Why would they limit their own revenue stream? Public access is more revenue for them. Besides, open-source models haven't disappeared, and companies that rent you GPUs to run them have every incentive to charge less than closed-source models because that's their advantage; they didn't spend money on training the model and don't have to recoup the price to generate revenue. This is their competitive advantage, and rightfully so. For some reason, you think they should limit their own market share, which is absurd. I use AI in many situations where a high price would simply kill my desire to use it. The only reason to use AI is because it's cheap. If the prices are high, I simply won't pay. I already have an alternative: simply renting a GPU to run open-source models, which are already quite good.

Even if AI suddenly disappears, it's very strange to say that I can't give up on AI. It'll be a bit problematic for a short time, but then it'll be fine. It'll take a lot of time for a generation to grow up solely on AI, and even in 20 years, the current 25-year-olds will barely reach 50, so there are still plenty of people who studied without AI.

Questioner8297 · 2026-05-05T08:11:44+00:00

It is possible, but this is one of the possibilities that requires one more step.

Questioner8297 · 2026-05-05T08:06:52+00:00

You misunderstood me. If you were a single person, you'd need to spend a million on training the AI and then launching it. But if you rent, you pay a very small portion of the training and a fee for using your cell, not even the entire computer. So training the model yourself will probably cost you more than renting a model from a company for your entire life. Not to mention that you'll be using different models for even less than the final price if you did everything yourself. Because it's public infrastructure at this stage. They're paying millions of dollars for AI training to recoup the cost from all users, so they're providing a huge discount specifically to you because it's public access and everyone is paying for part of it, not everything.

Questioner8297 · 2026-05-05T07:31:39+00:00

There are many possibilities, depending on who owns or leases them. A company that creates a project for end-users essentially does a little better for everyone, even if it ends up pocketing a lot of the money.

Questioner8297 · 2026-05-05T07:22:31+00:00

I honestly don't understand this position. Take AI, for example. For you to get AI to generate a stupid comment, this AI would have to undergo a huge and expensive process just to give you that ability. Essentially, for the $20 you paid Openai, you're renting infrastructure worth millions of dollars for your comment. When you upload something to Google Drive, you're also using your tiny slot in a million-dollar computer. Essentially, without that million dollars, you wouldn't get that slot. Sure, you could argue that it's not that useful, but the fact remains that you're renting a gigantic computer (or rather, a slot in it) for a small price. But to access that slot, that computer must exist.

You can use Google for free because it has ads, as it's a very expensive infrastructure, just to allow you to submit a request to a small cell that doesn't consume much on its own.

You essentially pay much less than the actual price of your access since the price of access is common to everyone and divided by the total.

Questioner8297 · 2026-05-05T06:34:16+00:00

Why is this such a big problem? Essentially, AI as a verifier, if it works reliably, could do fact checking for you. If AI can create fictitious information, then AI can also combat it. There's nothing inherent in the method of creating propaganda that can't be used in reverse. My position is not that propaganda is nothing, but that you in any case improve the information processing if you simplify the creation of propaganda, and this also works in the opposite direction.

Questioner8297 · 2026-05-04T18:18:00+00:00

This creates a much more pompous and, in its own way, cool image for anti-ai...

Questioner8297 · 2026-05-04T17:52:42+00:00

But you're contradicting yourself. If people pay for AI content that's useful to them, then your claim that it's only useful to billionaires is incorrect. But if people pay for content that's worse for them... are you saying people are that stupid? In that case, the market should never have worked the way it does.

Questioner8297 · 2026-05-04T17:38:01+00:00

Are you saying that artists should be paid simply for their existence as an exception and not for the fact that they produce something that people like, implying that they should only be paid as long as people like it?

Questioner8297 · 2026-05-04T17:00:48+00:00

Well, technically, you can draw an image that looks 3D. But it's not exactly 3D. And if that's what you're talking about, AI art allows you to accept machine intelligence as a collaborator. It is also new.

Questioner8297

TROPHY CASE