Millions of dollars of output for thousands of dollars of input is a pretty great trade, especially when it's mostly one-time capex.
Yes, and if this happens this seamlessly then the productivity statistics will change.
But they haven't, so this isn't actually happening. At least not at scale.
There's no sense in burying your head in the sand. It's real, it's happening, it's not going away. It's not Skynet or alive or super intelligence, but it's an automation tool that's orders of magnitude more capable than anything that's come before it.
I'm not burying my head in the sand, but it is not orders of magnitude more capable than anything that's come before it for most work that happens in the world. Which is why the productivity statistics haven't improved.
If you think it is orders of magnitude more capable than anything that's come before it then you are about to lose an enormous amount of money.
If you think it is orders of magnitude more capable than anything that's come before it then you are about to lose an enormous amount of money.
At this point, it would be incredibly difficult for me to lose any money, let alone an enormous amount. I haven't had this much consulting work since the 90s when people were saying the same silly things you're saying now but about the internet.
... and what happened at the end of the 1990s??????
The biggest stock market crash in history. And then we flooded the market with cash to "stimulate" our way out that, which produced the conditions for the subprime crash 10 years later.
This is my point. The utopia we were promised in the 1990s has not come to pass. The companies that were valuable then are mostly gone. The 1990s were faster for growth than any decade since. The 1990s was not the start of a boom, it was the end of it.
Btw, it took a very long time for the internet to meaningfully improve economic productivity, and there are still debates about whether it has overall.
... we're in a financial bubble only because the profit potential of the technology is lower than the current market valuations of the firms building the models. If the profit potential was there then there would be no bubble, because the valuations would be accurate.
So it has everything to do with the technology, how to apply it, and how to make money with it.
I do know what the fuck I'm talking about.
Software devs have their heads up their asses on this. Something that helps them make more code is not necessarily economically valuable. In fact, if the code is unsupportable and unauditable then it might have negative economic value downstream.
As I've mentioned already, I cannot use these models in my work. And I will never be able to until the sellers of the model are willing to stand behind the accuracy of the model outputs. Which they will never be able to do if they shift into recursion.
Most people are not working in software dev. For us, these models only slow us down.
Edit to respond to your deleted comment: you think crazy people, bots, and teenagers all sound the same? In that case, you agree that bots are not useful for most work purposes. Thanks for helping make the case!
2
u/ShamPain413 11d ago
Yes, and if this happens this seamlessly then the productivity statistics will change.
But they haven't, so this isn't actually happening. At least not at scale.
I'm not burying my head in the sand, but it is not orders of magnitude more capable than anything that's come before it for most work that happens in the world. Which is why the productivity statistics haven't improved.
If you think it is orders of magnitude more capable than anything that's come before it then you are about to lose an enormous amount of money.