[13of40]

There was a movie that came out in 2001 called "Artificial Intelligence", at a time when we were still figuring out how things like search engines and the online economy were going to work. It had a scene where the main characters went to a city and visited a pay-per-question AI oracle. It was very artistically done, but it really revealed (in hindsight) how naive we were about how "online" was going to turn out.

When I look at the kinds of AI projects I have visibility into, there's a parallel where the public are expecting a centralized, all knowing, general purpose AI, but what it's really going to look like is a graph of oddball AI agents tuned for different optimizations.

One node might be slow and expensive but able to infer intent from a document, but its input is filtered by a fast and cheap one that eliminates uninteresting content, and it could offload work to a domain-specific one that knows everything about URLs, for example. More like the network of small, specialized computers scattered around your car than a central know-it-all computer.

[delusional]

> When I look at the kinds of AI projects I have visibility into, there's a parallel where the public are expecting a centralized, all knowing, general purpose AI

I don't think this is entirely fair to "the public". Media was stuffed with AI company CEOs claiming that AGI was just around the corner. Nvidia, OpenAI and Musk, Zuckerberg, and others were positively starry eyed at how, soon, we'd all be just a GPU matmul away from intelligence. "The public" has seen these eye watering amounts of money shifting around, and they imply that it must mean something.

The entire system has been acting as if GenAI was right around the corner.

[sgt101]

maybe there's a term confusion here - GenAI has come to mean Generative AI (LLM's, Diffusion models..) rather than General-AI. People call that AIG, now people also talk about AIS which I take to mean "human level on a narrow domain only" while AIG is "generally intelligent at roughly human level".

My personal belief is that AIS is not a real thing (in the sense I wrote above) because narrow domain competence is tightly coupled to general domain competence . Even very autistic people that are functional in some domain actually have a staggering range of competences that we tend to ignore because we expect them in humans. I think machines will be similar.

Anyway, AIG or AIS is not round the corner at all. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of value to be had from generative AI in the near future or now. Will this be a small fraction of the value from Web1.0 and Web2.0? Will it be approximately the same? Will it be a multiple? I think that's the question. I think it's clear that assistants for software engineers are somewhat valuable now (evidence: I get value out of them) how valuable? Well, more than stackexchange, less than a good editor. That's still alot, for me. I won't pay for it though...

And this points to the killer issue: there isn't a good way to monetize this. There isn't a good way to monetize the web, so we got adverts (a bad way). What will be the equivalent for LLM's? We just don't know right now. Interestingly there seems to be very little focus on this! Instead folks are studying the second order value. Using this "free thing" we can drive productivity... or quality... increase opportunities... create a new business?

[delusional]

I was definitely confusing the terms. I was thinking of AGI, but i remembered that the G was for general, and GenAI "felt" right (probably because it's used in a similar enough context).

Replace all the instances of GenAI with AGI in my post.

It's an interesting observation that the economics aren't there yet. I think it's generally assumed that if we find something valuable, we can probably figure out how to monetize it. That's not necessarily true though. In the same but opposite vein, it doesn't necessarily need to be useful to stick around. It's possible AI is forever going to be useless (in objective terms, maybe it will make people less efficient) but find a monetization strategy that keeps it around (maybe it makes people feel good).

A ton of the technology economy isn't really based on objective metrics of usefulness. Microsoft isn't the biggest because they're the most useful. We don't look to the quality of windows to understand if people will buy the next version. We don't look at the google search results as an indicator of google's profitability.

[13of40]

> The entire system has been acting as if GenAI was right around the corner.

To be clear, I think it is. It's just not going to be a hologram of a wizard in a room you can ask a question to for a quarter, which is what these chat bots and copilots you see today are modeled around.