Thanks for this great perspective, Alex. I'm watching too how AI influences the ins/outs of GM. A friend wrote similarly about the rise of the Enlightenment vs Endarkenment, and the fall back into patronage and favour. Or is there something in between?
Fascinating. Thanks for sharing Alex. It does feel a common thread that the human touch and relationships will be more valuable than ever ......but is this just short-term naivety until LLM / robots take-over society and we are wiped from it altogether? Doesn't feel so far away any more!
It’s such a coin toss! But one thing is: if there are no people involved any more, doesn’t pretty much everything just disappear in a puff of smoke? And what does that then mean? (Isn’t there even a point where no more profit can be extracted for tech bros because there’s nobody left to pay for it!)
Thanks Alex. I like the comparison with planning too. Being a non-digital or internet native, I remember the moment airlines stopped sending your tickets, then you had to print them out, and now they’re sent to your iPhone wallet (I don’t fly much but this sticks as a moment). I still find myself railing against this and all its iterations, observing that the ‘savings’ made by passing the bureaucracy onto us results in higher shareholder payouts and not investment in the company, its efficacy and its people.
If trusts and foundations could make clever use of LLMs, what ‘savings’ could go back into the grant-giving pot?
That sort of stuff irritates me too! As for your question this is really interesting. I don’t think the larger foundations would reduce their cost base with AI, they would just put it into different forms of bureaucracy - most are now saying the want to be influencers investors and infrastructure as well because their staff are always bored. (It’s a very boring job…) The smaller ones may well use it more. But will it get the money to the ‘right’ people? Whatever that is…
Leading with the Zuckerberg photo is criminal in the best way!
Thanks for this great perspective, Alex. I'm watching too how AI influences the ins/outs of GM. A friend wrote similarly about the rise of the Enlightenment vs Endarkenment, and the fall back into patronage and favour. Or is there something in between?
https://open.substack.com/pub/bobmcinnis/p/art-garfunkle?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=fl8n9
Fascinating. Thanks for sharing Alex. It does feel a common thread that the human touch and relationships will be more valuable than ever ......but is this just short-term naivety until LLM / robots take-over society and we are wiped from it altogether? Doesn't feel so far away any more!
It’s such a coin toss! But one thing is: if there are no people involved any more, doesn’t pretty much everything just disappear in a puff of smoke? And what does that then mean? (Isn’t there even a point where no more profit can be extracted for tech bros because there’s nobody left to pay for it!)
Thanks Alex. I like the comparison with planning too. Being a non-digital or internet native, I remember the moment airlines stopped sending your tickets, then you had to print them out, and now they’re sent to your iPhone wallet (I don’t fly much but this sticks as a moment). I still find myself railing against this and all its iterations, observing that the ‘savings’ made by passing the bureaucracy onto us results in higher shareholder payouts and not investment in the company, its efficacy and its people.
If trusts and foundations could make clever use of LLMs, what ‘savings’ could go back into the grant-giving pot?
That sort of stuff irritates me too! As for your question this is really interesting. I don’t think the larger foundations would reduce their cost base with AI, they would just put it into different forms of bureaucracy - most are now saying the want to be influencers investors and infrastructure as well because their staff are always bored. (It’s a very boring job…) The smaller ones may well use it more. But will it get the money to the ‘right’ people? Whatever that is…