> “Burn an enormous pile of (oil) money, to gain a large but smaller pile of (chip) money”

But continue having that pile of (chip) money after the oil and gas money runs out (either due to decarbonisation or due literally the resources running out).

Let's assume it works. So then ultra-religious authoritarians own part of AGI.

Sounds great!?

It really doesn't change much.

Please explain. People are upset about "woke" ChatGPT, because they have the comfort of that first-world problem.

Thing is, it can actually get much worse than optimizing for inclusion. Do we really want Sharia authoritarian AGI?

Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying with your terse reply?

We're talking about chips: stuff optimized for inference and training. It may have a lot of memory, it may be able to perform a lot of operations, but it would be difficult for it to enforce high-level concepts like "woke ChatGPT".

Are you telling me that the investors who give sama $trillions don't expect influence on the final product?

Isn't this the definition of soft power?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power

When NVIDIA sells GH200s to OpenAI, they expect nothing beyond the transaction. That's very different from getting trillions of dollars in investment from somebody to build chip fabs, etc.

I meant that the "first world" isn't as fair as you think it is, this should be especially clear now.

Oil money has openly said they want to diversify.

Hysterical to me people on here in other threads would be knocking Altman for trying to raise huge money from people with huge money who have literally made it a goal to diversify into other areas.

What a moron.