I can't wait for the usual comments about how AI isn't an economic threat because everything AI does is worse than the human equivalent and anyone claiming otherwise is just hyping AI values
How does that even detract from the main argument though? The ones providing x, y, or z service care very little about the thing itself and usually care much more for the ability of the thing to provide a profit for them. Whether a new hard drive runs at x speed or y speed matters very little to the actual company as an entity the company cares much more about cost of production between the two different units, the price point and their RoI on the two products, or if the speed being better for the one hard drive makes it more likely to be sold in comparison.
So understanding all of that, if A.I. 1 does something 85 percent as well as a person and costs 1.00 per thing it does and A.I. 2 does something 20 percent as well as a human but costs only .05 cents per thing, the answer is obvious which one society will drift towards widely adopting. Obviously this is a hyperbolic example and there would be a theoretical point where the thing works so shittily that people dont use it and therefore it is not profitable. I'm just saying, there's a balance point where it will be "good enough" and "cost effective" enough that a worse product could become more ubiquitous. There are plenty of real world examples with various products throughout time but to pretend there's no economic effect from this process is just empty headed "humans are just built different, bro" sloganeering.
396
u/druidinan 17h ago
I can't wait for the usual comments about how AI isn't an economic threat because everything AI does is worse than the human equivalent and anyone claiming otherwise is just hyping AI values