|
|
|
|
|
|
by atleastoptimal
16 days ago
|
|
|
> They come from walking around and talking to people. Looking them in the eye, sussing out what their real requirements are, and figuring out how to address their concerns with empathy. This claim depends on humans remaining the bottleneck to high-leverage information, necessitating a human<->human interfacing role that solicits requirements, ascertains intent, etc. I don't deny that that is very important and cannot be done by AI now. However, my concern is that AI will be much better at any domain of information processing, and organizations that gate important decisions being made by a network of barriers and information silos dependent on "talking to people" will be outcompeted by largely autonomously run AI agent organizations, which have, by their very design, far higher throughput, auditing, memory, parallelization, etc. It's kind of like saying that machines could never make fabric because it is impossible for a robot to replicate the complicated motion of a human threading a needle. The industrial revolution was prompted by creating machines which redesigned the entire process to account for machine limitations, and allowed the superior speed and scale of machines to drive higher productivity, delegating humans to a role of maintenance and simply feeding the machines their needed input. |
|
|
The output of agents has to have economic value, and for the foreseeable future this means someone is going to have to buy something.
Right now, it is humans who ultimately make the economic decision. Even if you have fully autonomous agentic organizations selling to each other, there are one or more humans at the end of the of the chain who agree to exchange money for value.
Science Fiction writers have envisioned futures where some currency other than money is used to track value, but so far as I can tell we are nowhere near moving to anything like that.