[forgetfreeman]

Pretty much. Given the levels of investment in capital and research if AI companies actually hit what they're aiming at they'd have to collapse the labor market to recoup, bricking the economy in the process. Given the levels of outside investment inflating valuations, if the bubble pops it's 2008 all over again. There's this incredibly narrow window of "just useful enough to extract rents" where everything doesn't go to shit.

[senordevnyc]

Extract rents? I don’t think you’re using the term rent correctly here.

[chowells]

No, it's correct. The best (short-term) case is that they become eternal parasites. If they fail to do that, they'll bring a lot down with them when they fall.

[gruez]

>The best (short-term) case is that they become eternal parasites.

Producing a product that delivers value and people are willing to pay for makes you a "parasite"? Sure, it might cause massive disruptions to the labor market, but that's mostly orthogonal to whether it's a "parasite" or not. Mechanized farming has almost wiped out agricultural employment (compared to pre-industrial levels), but that doesn't make tractor manufacturers or fertilizer companies "parasites"

[skulk]

tractor manufacturers or fertilizer companies didn't suck down the work of generations of predecessors in a questionably-legal fashion only to turn around and sell a heavily discounted version of that back to them. I'm not sure where "parasite" becomes appropriate, but your analogy is poor.

[gruez]

>in a questionably-legal fashion

Maybe in the eyes of seething artists/programmers seeing their jobs getting automated, but courts have so far ruled that AI training falls under fair use.

Moreover it's not hard to think of vaguely similar objections to fertilizers. They're often produced at some harm to society, as well as their use. They're also in some sense, a "heavily discounted" versions of that they replaced, bird guano or whatever.

[skulk]

re: questionable legality https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/meta-torrented-o...

> Moreover it's not hard to think of vaguely similar objections to fertilizers.

It's completely different. If LLM companies pulled this out of thin air it would be also different, but no; they've effectively plundered the commons and locked up all the profit for themselves. If intellectual labor goes the way of agricultural labor, I think humanity will have lost something valuable.

And don't come back with the "farmers would have said the same thing about the industrial revolution!" thing again if you're just going to terminate your thought there. Automating agricultural labor brings vast material benefits for all since it lowers the cost of tangible goods needed for life. I'd challenge you take this one step further and explain why automating intellectual labor will provide similar fruits and is therefore something to cheer for.

[chowells]

No, that's actually more destructive in the short term. That was the OP's point. If they actually become something effective, they will utterly destroy the economy. If they fail, they will drag the economy down around them as they go. The least destructive possible outcome is becoming eternal parasites.

[tverbeure]

Your analogy would be less terrible if mechanized farming took the fruits of traditional farmers and repackaged it.