What do you do with a a lot of money past a point? A corporate controlled AGI being just a stop on the way to build another private space agency seems like a...letdown.
> if you went to a group of investors and pitched a board game where the winners get space ships and the losers die, they'd call you crazy. But if you suggested to those same investors that perhaps we shouldn't organize our entire society that way, they'd call you crazy.
"where the winners get space ships and the losers die,"
The Social Security budget is $1.4 Trillion, just the federal welfare budget is >$1Trillion (not including state budgets), and then there's medicare. Meanwhile, the NASA budget is <$25B (with SpaceX's operating budget and profits being a fraction of that)
I wish we lived in that simple of a world. But we don't.
“the winners get space ships and the losers die, they'd call you crazy”
Was the original quote. I just showed that you could get rid of all rockets ever made and it would be a rounding error for any funds used to save the “losers” from dying.
To be honest, I would take a private space agency 7 days out of the week with that kind of capital. We have no fundamental proof that LLMs will scale to the intelligence levels that we imagine in our heads. The industry application for LLMs is even weaker than computer vision, and the public sentiment is almost completely against it. Sam's product is hype; eventually people are going to realize that Q* and Strawberry were marketing moves intended to extend OpenAI's news cycle relevancy and not serious steps towards superintelligence. We were promised tools, and they're shipping toys.
I could tell you in very plain terms how a competitor to Boeing and SpaceX would benefit the American economy. I have not even the faintest fucking clue what "AGI" even is, or how it's profitable if it resembles the LLMs that OpenAI is selling today.
I would agree with you that a space agency is also useful (maybe more useful some days of the week). Sam disagrees and thinks he can do better without a non-profit board now.
I'm glad we live in a world where he gets to try and we get to tax him and his employees to do other things we consider useful.
Its interesting how first impressions can be so deceiving. The world's largest private space agency (SpaceX) has completely changed the game in rural internet connectivity. Once upon a time, large chunks of the US had no reliable high speed internet. SpaceX has brought high-speed low-latency internet to every corner of the globe, even the middle of the ocean and Antarctica. This isn't going nowhere even if it seems that way.
SpaceX is not a private space agency though, it is a private space launch and satellite communications company, which has revolutionized access to space and access to communication, providing enormous social benefit.
People use SpaceX every day even if they never connected to a starlink -- the lower costs that governments pay for space launches means more money for other things, not to mention no longer paying Russia for launches or engines.
I think they're both overhyped by sci-fi optimism but I would agree (even being mostly an AI minimalist) the impact of LLMs (and their improvement velocity) is a lot meaningful to me right now. I mean satellites are cool and all.
This comment reeks of Steve Ballmer opinion of Apple and the Internet early days. If you work at any decent technology company, you realize AI applications every where and the pending mass layoffs. Or nimbler startups replicating their work more efficiently.
> What do you do with a a lot of money past a point?
Feed the hungry. House the homeless. Give away money unconditionally to those in need. Build hospitals in poor countries. Fight disinformation on crucial topics (such as climate change). Provide disaster relief. Not build more power hungry technology that exacerbates our current problems.
Do literally anything positive for another person, that does not harm others.
The list is pretty big when one isn’t selfish; there’s no law forcing anyone to build space agencies.
Funnel $10B in housing to Los Angeles and you'll build less than 100 units of housing, because the inflationary push of that money would balloon the cost of per unit housing. I don't want to imagine the effect of that on middle class housing.
Funnel $10B of food to xyz famine region and you've undercut local farmers for generations. Happens all the time [1]. And that's assuming you can get the aid past local corruption.
These problems aren't as simple as people assume, and I'm low-key happy young naive Billionaire's are avoiding these issues instead of trying to throw their weight around.
FWIW: Sam's already funneled a bunch of money into green energy production[2].
> Funnel $10B in housing to Los Angeles and you'll build less than 100 units of housing, because the inflationary push of that money would balloon the cost of per unit housing. I don't want to imagine the effect of that on middle class housing.
Doesn't make sense to me. An uptick in construction work will not be an inflation balloon. More disposable income doesn't mean 1:1 more spending.
If you build a lot of (social) housing, you put at worst a lot of people a roof above their head.
Families having less financial stress might lower crime rate and improve children school scores. They might save to start businesses or find their other talents.
For some, this might be a downside tough. It makes workers more educated, healthier, more stable, less desperate and less dependent on bosses, plus they might be less angry so politically less exploitable too.
"An uptick in construction work will not be an inflation balloon. "
There's a massive shortage in construction workers [1], so yes there will be? The few construction workers we do have can demand higher wages (yay!) but then will they be outbidding other mid-income folks for housing with those increased wages? Sounds like an inflation spiral to me.
My statement wasn't against social housing, I love social housing. We just haven't cracked the code in scaling housing (and subsequent maintenance) yet. And the problem is about 80% political will, billionaire cash is useless here.
On a macro scale, that has hardly any impact, and I think it would be even immeasurable.
It is rather the other way around. Higher rents / house prices will make sure only people with higher wages can afford to live there. That means your bagel or coffee will be more expensive there too.
Nope, LA is too much part of the macro economy to make such an impact. Wood and labor doesn't have to come from LA and even if that would double (it won't) there would be a round zero impact on inflation in LA.
The land to be build was going to be sold anyways, you just get one bidder more, or several bidders less if the council makes requirements like x% social housing.
Please, forget anything you are worrying about here, it does not apply.
Literally every problem I mentioned is at its worst state possible. People with millions and billions simply waiting to buy materials or get land approvals. It’s a well know intractable problem [1] and really the crux of the problem.
If just these problems could be solved the state has more than enough funds to house everyone. What billionaires do would be wholly irrelevant (like it is now)
I didn’t say “do these things inefficiently”. If we know better, we can do better. It’s like if I said “use the money to fix the potholes in this road” and you replied “but if you shove all that asphalt in the same hole, it will create a mound that stops cars from going through”. Yeah, don’t dump everything in the same place without thinking.
Start by collaborating with organisations which are entrenched in studying these issues and the impact of the solutions. If you have the money you can pay them to help and guide the effort, don’t act like if you know everything.
Yes this has basically been the modus operandi of the gates foundation and it took them 10 years to make a dent on Malaria. They still have no clue how to “efficiently” reduce famines.
They won’t touch American housing problems with a 10ft pole. That should tell you something.
Go to Berkeley, tell them a Billionaire wants to build housing for the homeless in their neighborhood. See what happens.
It’s a hard pill to swallow but the best thing billionaires can do is let us tax them and then butt out go fly rockets. The political problems is upto the rest of us.
> They won’t touch American housing problems with a 10ft pole.
Why do you keep insisting on the USA? It’s not the only country in the world.
> Go to Berkeley
I will not. I’m not American.
> It’s a hard pill to swallow but the best thing billionaires can do is let us tax them
Maybe it’s a hard pill to swallow for the billionaire, but I personally agree and think you’re right. However, this conversation started with someone asking “what do you do with a a lot of money past a point” and offering only a private space agency as an alternative to working on AGI. My point was there are many other problems worth pursuing.
My point was every other problem would be made worse by a billionaire pushing his/her money in there. Everyone is a couple of billions of money funneled away from becoming the next George Soros.
If you don’t think NIMBYism and degrowth is a problem in your country yet, just give it a couple of years. It just hit England, you’re next. No billionaire can save you.
World: "But what if it was like, a lot of money?"
Sam: "Oh alright you convinced me. Fuck my principles."