Formally, that's not the correct analogy, but very creepy, as it sounds pretty similar (however not equivalent) to asking for 8% of the world population to be his project slaves.
“My whining multi tweet rant to Sam Altman”
A man who can't seem to help out his own sister, is now going to save the world with a 7 trillion dollar LLM fund.
Thats 10 years of the us military budget.
Thats the GDP of Japan and India Combined.
Sam Altman is to tech what late 80's telivanglishts were to religion.
Edit: looks like there are abuse allegations, so it's not only about helping; what I wrote above is not that relevant.
And it's society's job to hold him to account. That $7T isn't coming from nowhere: it's ultimately sourced from the graft and economic contribution of millions of people. However small their individual contributions might be perceived as, they're real. Society has every right to scrutinise and challenge plans: the bigger the plan, the bigger the societal impact, the more it should be scrutinised.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman is in talks with investors to raise as much as $5 trillion to $7 trillion for AI chip manufacturing
Altman has reportedly met with a range of potential investors worldwide, including sovereign wealth funds and government entities, notably the United Arab Emirates, SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son, and representatives from Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.
the prospect of substantial UAE investment in a key tech industry raises potential geopolitical concerns, particularly regarding the US government's strategic priorities in semiconductor production and AI development.
Am I missing something? It feels pretty lazy. Like an enumeration of things we are supposed to care about, rather than an effort to build a solid argumentation against Sam Altman's fundraising effort.
And I have other issues with how these potential problems are framed, as if something that happens kind of organically and not a symptom of an increasingly plutocratic system. But admittedly maybe that's me being uncharitable to the author.
I don't know, I don't really object to the arguments themselves, just how poorly written this piece was.
> How do we know that $7 trillion invested into LLMs and their infrastructure would not simply exacerbate those costs, grinding down content creators, women, and the environment, undermining democracy, destroying jobs, etc?
“Destroying jobs” is pretty much a _good_ thing. I think we’re all pretty happy we don’t need dedicated people anymore for a lot of tedious tasks that we take for granted these days (washing clothes etc)
It's not destroying only jobs, it's destroying those people's probably the sole profit source, with their families, health, lives.
Calling it a "good thing" is basically calling for a human genocide.
It’s completely boring, but if we’re talking about investing in infrastructure at that scale, almost anything else is more consequential than Sam’s vision here. There really is some special tech god myopia to thinking you can add $7T of GPU compute to an already struggling planet and think that will end well. Sam’s take on climate change is that it’s not happening fast enough to get in his way, therefore it’s not something that even needs to be part of his calculus. It’s unhinged and unrealistic. What he is talking about simply cannot be decoupled from the climate impact it will impose.
Call me old fashioned but having living, healthy humans is more valuable to humanity than an, albeit impressive, text generator
It does not matter much here, but most probably he's not the only one.
> US$6.6 billion is needed to avert catastrophe.
So yeah, not a plan to solve world hunger... Which goes to say, the problem is much greater than what some pocket money can solve.
You're not old fashioned. You're sensible.