> If AI suddenly makes it possible for a law firm to be run with a skeleton crew, then what's stopping all those people you fired from starting new law companies, where AI also does most of the work, and competing with you for the same market?
Money. They won't have the money to pay for the tokens, or the best models, because they'll be unemployed. They also won't have the connections to get the clients.
When you're playing a game of "who has the best capital," the scrappy underdog worker with vastly less won't win.
The idea that making the economy even more capital intensive will some how equalize things is an insane fantasy only a software engineer could swallow.
It has become a meme at this point but this sentence still stands: "The underlying purpose of AI is to allow wealth to access skill while removing from the skilled the ability to access wealth".
Haven’t heard that meme, but it seems like you could replace “AI” with “civilizational striving/class struggle” and extend it across the whole of human history
Of course! This is just class consciousness. But AI does potentially represent a sea change in the ability of the capital class to make labor superfluous. Considering AI outside of the context of the eternal class struggle risks missing the forest for the trees.
Taste and experience are so much more important than the raw talent. You can't fix this with money.
https://youtube.com/shorts/akcSX81KOv4
Money is exactly what got us to this point! Besides, I always thought taste, or at least 'popular' taste, was a market function, or something?
That's what people like Rick Rubin (Iovine, the Medici's, etc), deep down, need us to believe. Probably.
The whole "Taste makes all the difference" has been meme'd to death too: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DYuj_4dxVg2/.
Also... I won't add any details to avoid doxing myself, but trust me on this, Rick is the last person nowadays you'd want to listen to for anything taste-related, unless we're talking about feeding your own ego and carefully curating your own public image, and disappearing for weeks. I'd pay very good money to be around his ghost producers/writers/engineers again, though.
There’s enough (massive) market share in automating things that don’t require taste
What does taste generally mean these days?
Large quantities of palm oil and fewer orangutans.
But orangutans are where the protein's at!
havent heard taste being a defining factor in building farming robots that can replace labor.
"doing shit fast and good enough" seems to be a much better fitness function here
> Taste and experience are so much more important than the raw talent. You can't fix this with money.
Ok, so you've secured a future employment for 10,000 asethetes.
Congratulations! Then what about the other 8 billion people? Still unemployement, right?
You could also replace AI with (Proper) Education and get the same logical conclusion. The wealthy would be able to access future advanced pedagogical techniques that would equalize the advantages of both talent and hard work in a post-competence future.
But a post-competence future is ultimately a good thing for humanity. There is no inherent reason why somebody who is talented or skilled in the specific abilities that society deeems necessary should be privileged if those needs can now be automated. It just sounds more like an arbitary class deemed the "skilled" complaining about the loss of their elite status against another, more entrenched elite class relying on wealth. But as a commoner, why should I favour the meritocrats who look down on me over the wealthy who might be more magnanimous in understanding their privilege?
Sorry that's no realistic. People start businesses, including law firms, all the time with little to no capital.
Assuming token costs will be prohibitive assumes:
A) tokens will be really expensive and B) you need to fund tokens before you have revenue.
Your asserting AI makes the economy more capital intensive, when I think you'll see in practice it's the opposite.
People start businesses all the time yes.
But like 80% shuts down before reaching 2 years as they run out of money.
If the rate of failure is slightly consistent then more layoffs will lead to more startups, so more will get on top. Many companies business are easier to attack than it looks. Look early 2000, early 2010 have both brought their set of amazing startups. 5 years ago people were most motivated to switch companies for more money.
> People start businesses, including law firms, all the time with little to no capital.
Those people are usually very talented and work 16/7. And they need to convince other similar people to work for them, usually at a lower-than-market rate.
The premise here is "talented humans working hard" will stop being a valuable thing due to AI.
Do you think that will happen? That’s what most of the entrepreneurship I see looks like
> Sorry that's no realistic. People start businesses, including law firms, all the time with little to no capital.
You're clinging past: what you is true when human capital counts for something, but what happens when it doesn't? Where the party who can spend the most tokens on the case wins (or has a much greater chance of success)?
Law might not be the best example of that, but (under current trends) a lot of areas will be.
> Your asserting AI makes the economy more capital intensive, when I think you'll see in practice it's the opposite.
You're claiming AI will make the economy more labor intensive? Huh?
Sounds like Jevons Paradox to me: Amount of output per worker-hour increases(cost drops edit sorry), paradoxically worker-hours _increase_.
Mechanism? New Use Cases become viable.
Just like LED lights and Virtual Machines made light-per-watt and workloads-per-server more efficient, what did we do with that efficiency? We didn't pocket the cash, we turned every billboard and many buildings into JumboTrons, and we made millions of new cheap cloud VMs to run hundreds of thousands of new little businesses that never would have happened.
Look at coding now: People are finishing side projects that they never would have, closing out old bugs or test coverage they never would have, starting side businesses they never would have before.
This is new demand being created before our eyes as the cost of knowledge work drops.
> what happens when it doesn't?
It will never happen. Capitalism works when consumers can choose the best service provider. When there is only one universal service provide (AI), behind various "fronts", it would be catastrophic.
And all the consumers lose catastrophically.
So there should be at least some human component to differentiate between the various "AI" providers.
But if the AIs learn from the business (at some point they need to) then the differentiator get's absorbed back. If you figure out how to optimize your AI/humanoid robot, that benefit you have only lasts until the next AI model that incorporates your successes.
But LLMs does not learn/train like that. They need the same thing repeated a gazillion times in the their training data to actually use it in inference.
So unless this human element get absorbed widely into literature, then I think the scenario you present is not possible, at least in the context of current LLMs.
May be there will be true AI in future, that can read a fact and grasp it brilliance, like a human do, and use it in answering future questions. Then what you said could be possible.
I'm assuming for it to work at the level of filling rolls in businesses like this they will need to generate synthetic data to train on from onsite data, which will be the best practices of you and your competitors and hence include the corpus of what makes you better/lean compared to your competitor and remove differentiators.
That’s a should, what makes it a will? Capitalism can just be killed by AI.
In the same way that you cannot compete against Ford at making cars without capital because Ford used their capital to automate manual labor at prices and speeds you'll never be able to reach.
"Intellectual" jobs, that require thought were yet spared, as the only way to use capital for that was just to pay for more meat: see Accenture, CapGemini, IBM, etc. You could carve yourself a spot for some people because it was hard for this capital to reach them. Now that AI, a literal machine that automates thought, is here, the costs for reaching bumfuck nowhere to take the clients away from you has dropped drastically for them, but not for you. They get economies of scale, already established patterns, tools, internal databases. You're starting with hopes, dreams and a $20 Claude sub that runs out at 10AM.
There is not infinite need for lawyers, there being more lawyers does not create more legal opportunities and cases past a certain point, and you're then dependent on other things like there being enough judges.
Robots transformed capital into manual actions and killed most manufacturing jobs save for precious few experts or things that are too expensive to automate still. AI will transform that capital into intellectual labor and crush you, take all opportunities away from you.
Actually there is effectively infinite demand for legal services, in the same way that there is effectively infinite demand for software. In highly regulated industries like healthcare we're constantly backlogged on legal capacity. It's not just "cases" but contract review, sales negotiations, customer documentation, regulatory affairs, civil enforcement activities, etc. Current LLMs are helpful for basic tasks like preliminary legal research and drafting documents but they still make frequent errors and can't carry out complex workflows lasting months that depend on high-context human relationships. Better automation would be a huge unlock to accelerate these business activities.
The price for legal work going down might very well create more demand, including for people operating "law machines". Not sure we know where future equilibria lie.
One recent comment from my interviews was that people who use AI are using it for tasks in domains they didnt deal with before. So this would be creating dashboards or writing sql queries. Or reading and reviewing contracts.
The “easy stuff” for someone’s job, is now the AI stuff for someone else’s job. Where you would hire an intern, the potential client is using Claude instead.
The issue is that this breaks the talent / growth pipeline. You can’t have experts if they don’t go through the process of getting trained and working on incrementally harder problems.
> The “easy stuff” for someone’s job, is now the AI stuff for someone else’s job. Where you would hire an intern, the potential client is using Claude instead.
And what happens when the SQL query has some subtle error or is missing data?
With interns, there’s an implicit understanding that you will spend a bit of extra time reviewing their work and mentoring them. With “just AI it bruh,” there is not.
Demand for law related things isn't elastic. In fact, in an increasingly unemployed, AI first future, work law is a dead end, contract law is a dead end, and there will not be "AI law" jobs created.
"Price go down means more demand" applied blindly is a an economic theory so absurdly shit that even the most apeshit libertarians like Ayn Rand know it isn't true. Don't make me defend Ayn Rand.
Labor law will be hit more by widespread use of robotics, but I can envision a much larger market for contract disputes and transactional law. Having AI in both sides doesn’t mean people won’t disagree about stuff.
What is an "AI first future"? Infinitely capable robots and AI? All current laws and regulations suddenly gone or changed?
Why would there be less demand for contract law or for privacy related law, for example? There is certainly some elasticity in law related things from my own experience.
Where have I applied elasticity blindly?
> Demand for law related things isn't elastic.
Of course it is. When someone is thinking of suing someone else the first thing that gives them pause is the potential legal costs.
Which hasn't changed, because the company you would have sued that was spending 200k on a lawyer is now spending 500k worth of tokens to spend the next consecutive 300 hours without sleep to find out that you took an unauthorised 5.1 minute shit on April 23 at 3PM by reviewing every single hour of camera footage and establishing a physical movement map of MAC addresses based on proximity to the WiFi relays they put every 10 meters.
You. Cannot. Win. Against. Capital.
And then you're going to sue, and realize that the system is so massively overloaded that the next available judge and jury are in 32 years. Also they're lobbying to replace those with AI judges where they entirely removed the concept of nuance.
If AI eats law, then AI must also eat judgement (either judge or jury) for the bulk of cases.
Could see the future being AI arguments -> AI judgement -> appeal to human judge/jury
With the appeal to humans being expensive (human lawyers required?) or volume-barred in some manner.
It's ok. AI will have replaced most VCs by then and increase the efficiency of capital allocation. The right people will get funded, competition will work it's magic, and consumers will benefit mightily. Nobody's profit margins are safe.
Of course, who knows. There's always another angle you can look at this from
So you’re saying banks (who can loan new money out of thin air) will end up being the winners of all this.
There's definitely going to be cheap or open source models
> There's definitely going to be cheap or open source models
What makes you think your "cheap or open source model" running on your piddling desktop cluster will be able to complete against a SOTA one running in a billion-dollar datacenter?
It's a cyberpunk fantasy. It won't work out that way.
Local models that run on a laptop (not even needing a "cluster") are already better than ChatGPT from a couple of years ago. Yes, Claude and ChatGPT today are certainly better than these local models, but they can't keep getting better indefinitely -- there's only so much info to scrape. When they hit a plateau, it is only a matter of time that consumer hardware will catch up to it.
I think the parent is speculating that there may be an order of magnitude improvement in the cheap / OSS model space such that one running on a piddling desktop cluster could match or exceed the capabilities of the current SOTA on billion-dollar datacenter.
Eventually AI-run banks will refuse credit to non-AI customers, directly or indirectly
It's nice to know they picked up their training data's penchant for racism in loans.
Time to start a business called "white billionaire" or name your kid "Rich White".