Leo's amazing predictions

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, something_else said:

It is leaps and bounds above the AI image generation. Like not even in the same ballpark of impact.

That is because there is just so much more text as training data. The more training data, the easier it is to fake the illusion of AGI.

These tech companies are using the massive availability of intelligent text on the internet to create extremely convincing illusions of AGI that is fooling 90% of people.

But without AGI you cannot truly replace jobs, and what can be replaced becomes commoditized and almost worthless.

If you can just build a world-class app with a few prompts, then apps are now worthless. Say goodbye to apps-building as a business.

What people are not realizing is that whatever AI can do is no longer a viable business.

If I can code full self-driving cars with a few AI prompts, then Tesla self-driving is worthless.

The reality is that AI cannot build anything worldclass.

Edited 5 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Davino]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't think this is a valid argument because nuclear energy takes decades to build. You can't get significant new nuclear energy production without 5-10 years of build-out. This bubble cannot wait that long.

Yes that's the likely scenario but it still could be pulled off, we have been seeing major movements in this direction by Microsoft, Google, Amazon or Meta.

A great discovery in the energy field could start a new race that rapidly accelerates that process. But as you say the timing matters for this to work.

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, Davino said:

Yes that's the likely scenario but it still could be pulled off, we have been seeing major movements in this direction by Microsoft, Google, Amazon or Meta.

A great discovery in the energy field could start a new race that rapidly accelerates that process. But as you say the timing matters for this to work.

But even if you have infinite free power, so what?

If AI cannot replace jobs then energy breakthroughs cannot change that.

The problem is going to be this: Companies will try to replace workers with AI, it will seem like it's working at first, but a few years down the road every company will realize that the products and services built via AI aren't worldclass, aren't competitive, making AI almost worthless. That's when the crash comes.

This is a debate about the inherent value of chatbots without AGI. Are chatbots without AGI worth trillions upons trillions? I don't think so. But I could be wrong about that.

Edited 5 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Butters]

1 hour ago, Davino said:

If we get a breakthrough in nuclear energy, finding very efficient ways of producing massive amounts of energy, then keeping up the margin profits of building bigger AI models become more plausible.

But more compute will only lead to tiny improvements at this point, it's called the diminishing returns of AI scaling laws. At the current frontier, moving the needle just a fraction requires doubling or even 10x-ing the total compute budget. 

What actually makes sense is creating better harasses, which is why Claude Code and others have become significant in the last 12 months. 

[Leo Gura]

An important factor is China. China is making much cheaper models at 10% the cost.

China alone could kill OpenAI and Anthropic.

It will be a sweet irony if OpenAI and Anthropic both get replaced by cheaper foreign verisons that were copied off their work.

No honor among theives.

If you think about it from first principles, AGI should not use more energy than a single lightbulb. Since humans do it like that. But that means you don't need to pay Nvidia billions.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Davino]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

But even if you have infinite free power, so what?

If AI cannot replace jobs then energy breakthroughs cannot change that.

Part of the problem companies are facing right now even when AI is able to replace part of a job, is that the cost associated with the use of the technology (tokens) is far greater than having a guy in India doing it. 

So the truth is that AI can't substitute most jobs but in those which it can, it's most of the times much cheaper to get a person to do it. A breakthrough in energy would mostly solve the second case. You would need a huge capex investment first to set up all the infrastructure and hardware but then the opex of running it would be much cheaper; making it probably affordable and sustainable.

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Davino said:

Part of the problem companies are facing right now even when AI is able to replace part of a job, is that the cost associated with the use of the technology (tokens) is far greater than having a guy in India doing it. 

Token cost will go down a lot, I think. But AGI will not materialize so Indian jobs won't be replaced.

[Davino]

I'm excited to see how all this will unfold.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

I'm not so excited. I don't want the bubble to pop.

Not keen to experience another 2008.

[Leo Gura]

I am excited for mechanical hell. Hooray!

[Davino]

Don't be doomers, it's the cycle of life, let's enjoy it with popcorn 

[thenondualtankie]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

These tech companies are using the massive availability of intelligent text on the internet to create extremely convincing illusions of AGI that is fooling 90% of people.

You're missing the fact that LLMs can generate their own text, verify whether this text is correct, and expand their own datasets.

This is why we're seeing such massive progress in verifiable domains like mathematics. AI can now solve research grade mathematics problems. You don't need to be "skeptical", look it up. There was a recent major theorem proven entirely by GPT 5.6-Sol.

 

Edited 27 minutes ago by thenondualtankie

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

If A.I. progress will be as slow as some of you are predicting and jobs will still be there, then that's also good as far as I'm concerned, it'd give me large enough of a time window to transition to a career in this field in some way, shape or form. Not seeing anything more worthwhile to be engaged with than with this tbh, as humans are just full of shit including everyone here and me (hence I'm opposed to the last Leo's blogpost about needing to invest into spectaculiar humans as opposed to A.I. LOL), I'm on the hype train until technology legit stops advancing with the pace it is advancing right now; economy and investors can kiss my ass; why should impatience of investors be indicative of anything other than their own foolishness