It has the potential to lower both but we as plebs will not see those benefits because the value will accrue at the top and not necessary translate into lowering costs for consumers.

i can read it here, thank you nostr:npub1ty3ftnetpxnlj42lgwkmwdxta69gfm5f9mfljvmwdgymvsf6pkuswhxq4p !

re thoughts for nostr:npub1r0rs5q2gk0e3dk3nlc7gnu378ec6cnlenqp8a3cjhyzu6f8k5sgs4sq9ac

1. Every transfer of tech will yield a period of dip where people would have to figure on how to optimise and advance the tech, before it becomes profitable.

2. Historically on various tech shift - from automation in 17th century, to recent years ie shift from agriculture to industrialisation, globalisation - it does create extreme poverty because there will be group of people who cannot adapt either age factor, interest, cost, environment etc. But on a larger and absolute scale, it advances the country

3. I think in this aspect he is right, when he says "don't let thought police suppress AI" because we don't know yet who is the thought police and whats the intention.

4. He may have ulterior motives in his numerous AI investments, but having a council, global body etc over AI - might be similar to the nuclear body - not everybody in the world would agree. But on the flip side, would it be globally catastrophic ?

In conclusion, i don't know enough to respond to this. Sorry to make you read all the way here lol - but i think opinion pieces like this are great as it gets more people to think about it, to talk about it - and the more people speak out, the more the governments will understand what the people want.