Rob Wiblin

They won't like that.

There's a mismatch in incentives between the investors and the CEO, and the CEO is sort of being a bad agent to their principal.

So basically like the more things look like an efficient competitive market with very little slack, the more the leading company will be sort of forced to provide access to the rest of us.

Yeah, I think it's unclear.

I think there are, certainly they have some incentive to be into this, but the two sort of alternative uses of AI labor that might be more attractive to them are like one, power seeking for themselves, just like,

Building up an enormous AI lead over everyone else and then sort of bursting onto the scene with an incredible amount of power and the ability to challenge the US government or nation states might be attractive to some people.

I think that would be a very evil strategy to pursue, but it's definitely in the water.

The other thing is more mundane.

It's just...

using these AIs to make normal goods and services, to make the products and the media content and the other services that people most want to pay money for in a short-term sense.

It's very similar to how, right now, we don't spend a huge fraction of society's GDP on biodefense and cyberdefense and these other things, and moral philosophy.

It's just like, that's not what people want to pay for.

And AI is like another, it's just a thing that accelerates the creation of products and services people want to pay for.

And this isn't very high on the list.

Yeah, I think that that is likely to come up, especially for physical defenses, like manufacturing PPE, or scaling up the ability to rapidly create medical countermeasures.

And then also for

social and policy things.

So I can imagine that AIs could be very helpful in figuring out what kind of agreement between the U.S.

and China would be mutually beneficial and how we could enforce it.

But the way human decision-making works still probably requires humans from the U.S.