I see this argument all the time from tech people: Building gargantuan AI models may be computationally, environmentally, and financially costly. But if those models then go on to solve cancer, isn't that on balance better for the world?

NOOOO.

A thread.

Let me first point out how Silicon Valley loooves this narrative. They use the same argument to justify the existence of billionaires. If someone can amass that wealth and then use that money for good, then it also must be on balance good for the world.

I *strongly* disagree with this line of logic. Concentrating resources away from the marginalized in society to the richest in society so that the rich can then decide who to bestow those resources to doesn't make the world a more equitable place.

When a company like Google or Microsoft or OpenAI builds these gargantuan models so that *they,* our benevolent tech dictators, get to exclusively decide what kinds of problems they want their models to tackle, that does NOT make the world a more equitable place!

On top of that name one technology in history that has successfully been redistributed completely equitably from the bastions of privilege and power to the have-nots in society. We've yet to achieve this with even the most basic resources like water, paper, electricity, internet.

So next time you hear someone make this argument, ask yourself: Who are they? Is this argument self-serving to them? Does it let them keep all their wealth and power on the presumption that they will be nice and benevolent?

Yeah...nope.

Ok, my rant is done.

You may now continue with your day.