← Back to context

Comment by 3ash14

8 hours ago

Stockfish isn't owned by a club of three trillionaires. It does not cost $15 million to achieve a result in Stockfish.

Stockfish does not steal research or scoop researchers.

The concentration of computing resources and capital should be examined by the math community.

The trailing edge of AI is catching up fast. There's plenty of open source (and even more open weight) AI models and they are getting better and better.

If that's your only objection: in a few years you can prove Rieman's hypothesis on your smartphone, no need for any trillionaires to give you permission. Does that make any change to your argument, or did it not actually matter?

This is the real problem. We're looking at a future where those who control AI have an insurmountable advantage in everything. They can control the amount of intelligence the masses have access to -- for their own safety, of course -- and they will never, ever be able to close the gap.

  • There's lots of competition in AI. Where do you see the 'insurmountable advantage in everything'?

  • Say they do. What then? Will people buy from them? What if we decide not to?

    • At a certain point, you don't have a choice. Before China got into the game, the only way to avoid giving Luxotica money if you wanted a pair of glasses was to essentially not buy glasses. This is the same for many industries -- consolidation behind the scenes.

      1 reply →