Depends. The only predictions I have seen here are the centaurs vs anti centaurs of Doctorow, and even his analysis I find pretty flimsy.

I dont think the race to shove an LLM into everything is going to grow the pie.

But I also dont think it is impossible that a use case will present itself that will create further jobs.

The issue is that its largely unpredictable.

Its a bit like, we are sitting around in the 1950s trying to predict how computers will affect the economy.

It is going to take more than 1 successful deductive leap to get us from 1950s computing -> miniaturisation -> computer in every home -> internet communications.

Every deductive leap we take is extremely prone to being wrong.

We simply cannot lie back and imagine every productive relationship in the economy and then extrapolate every centaur and anti centaur possible for it.

What we do know is that theres a bit of a gold rush to effectively brute force every possible AI variant into every productive relationship in the economy. The fastest way to get the answer to your question is to do it. Possibly the only way to get the answer is to do it.

For instance, someone might imagine LLMs simply eating a whole bunch of service industry jobs. At the same time, theres a mid state where it eats some, but the remaining staff are employed to monitor the LLMs to prevent them handing out free shit to smart shoppers. Its also easy enough to imagine that LLMs never quite get there and the risk is too large for foul play, so they just dont gain that kind of traction. Its also possible to imagine an end state where LLMs can get to 0% risk if they are constantly trained on human data coming from humans doing the same job, and that humans are gainfully employed in parallel with LLMs. Its possible that LLMs are great at business as usual, but the risk emerges when company policies change, and the cost of retraining LLMs makes it impractical for move fast and break things companies to do anything but hire humans. My favourite scenario is one where humans are largely AI assisted, trained on particular people, and theres a massive cybercrime industry built around exfiltrating LLM training weights trained on high functioning humans and deploying them without humans to the third world to help them get 80% of the quality of first world businesses, making them heavily competitive.

We dont know what we dont know.

>Yes, it does.

Tools compete with Tools. Operators of tools compete with other tool operators. The tool doesn't compete in the same market as the operator. Lowering the barrier of entry for being a tool operator is cool and good actually.

>You do not have to reproduce sources in their entirety to produce derivative works.

True, but if there's no great % of the original in the derivative it doesn't matter. Like you need to actually make the positive case clearly demonstrating the wounded party or its just noise. This actually happened one time, where a legal firm loaded another parties data into an LLM and had it regenerate the data. Judge found that the result infringed despite the LLM use, which makes sense. But pointing at some weird AI generated boomer comic you cant identify any wounded party. Its slop made from enough unique sources that there's no victim, much like most derivative art forms. Making something that's 0.1% like 1000 different sources * random noise is unable to cause injury. Its not recognizably derivative in any sense except for style which isn't protected.

"Crossbench"

The Greens voted with the LNP to change the senate voting rules, pulling the ladder up behind them. They are just a third leg of the major parties.

Wheres my Australian Motoring Enthusiast? Wheres my Shooters Farmers and Fishers rep? Even the "Libertarian" (formerly Liberal Democrats) party had the occasional flash of brilliance.

Paymen was voted in with the ALP and probably wont rate reelection.

The only halfway decent crazy crossbench we have right now is Lambo, and shes only good like 45% of the time. Lidia thorpe can be good quality but shes like Paymen, and wont be reelected solo.

Heaps of these crossbenchers are only there thanks to Climate 200 funding, which will vanish the second that bloke achieves his goals or gets bored and wanders off.

>I can’t see how this is by any reasonable definition a “rubber stamp”

Labor shops everything to the LNP or Greens, and chooses the one they can more easily bully into compliance. LNP does the same when they are in power.

>Directly competing with those whose data was copied.

An LLM doesnt compete with Art the same way that Photoshop doesnt compete with Art.

>All of it, from everyone.

With the result that anything produced by the LLM does not reproduce any single source in its entirety (and where compelled if they are able to do that is a bug not a feature)

Fair use is too specific tbh, rather than ruling it fair use (which seems to be where things are going) it should just be ruled "use". There's nothing wrong with building a mathematical model using available data.

Good.