Locals: shop around for the place that sells it at the lowest cost. Take extra time to go to different stores for different products even if they're all available in one place. Regular price too high? Vote with your wallet and don't buy it. Good price but you don't have much money? Buy less.
Wealthy foreigner: This is cheap. I'll take it.
No one needs to know your income. The price may be the same for everyone, but if you're willing to pay a higher price, then they'll be more likely to keep the higher price, thus reducing everyone else's buying power. If you buy more than the locals and help eat up their stock, that again incentivises keeping prices where they are, or even increasing them. The storekeepers don't care about how much money you have. They look at whether things sell or not, then make their decisions based on that.
Anything we can provide is just a drop in the ocean of data they already have. Plus, this was how image generation worked before we got diffusion models (see "generative adversarial networks") and they never reached the level of image quality that diffusion models did.
Why would we need anyone to buy things? Remember that money is an abstraction for resources. If you can do everything with AI, then you already have all the resources you need. Whether or not someone else needs what you produce is irrelevant when you already have access to everything you could want.
It's not completely subjective. Think about it from an information theory perspective. We want a word that maximizes the amount of information conveyed, and there are many situations where you need a word that distinguishes AGI, LLMs, deep learning, reinforcement learning, pathfinding, decision trees and the like from the outputs of other computer science subfields. "AI" has historically been that word, so redefining it without a replacement means we don't have a word for this thing we want to talk about anymore.
I refuse to replace a single commonly used word in my vocabulary with a full sentence. If anyone wants to see this changed, then offer an alternative.
I'm so confused by this comment. Are you trying to say that putting a live animal under extreme pressure and zapping them would constitute animal cruelty?
I'm trying to help OP reach an answer to their question, therefore the definitions I'm working with are the same as that of OP. What I personally believe should be categorized as a "higher being" is irrelevant because if it's different from OP's definition, it won't help them reach their desired answer.
I don't think OP is asking about the existence of humans, or animals, or any other physical entity. If they were, you can trivially say that you exist, and therefore god exists. That's unless you want to go into ontology and question what it means to "exist", which I'm pretty sure also isn't what OP intended.
If I give an ostensive definition, I would say it includes the beings like the Abrahamic god, or Olympian gods, and exclude humans, animals, bacteria, the planet we live on, and objects we handle in our day to day lives. I'll tentatively draw the line at any being that is not bound to the laws of physics as we understand them today.
Occam's razor doesn't mean that the simplest explanation is always true, but rather that it's usually the most likely to be true.
Using simplicity as a measure of how likely something is to be true always felt a little anthropocentric. How do we determine that something is simple if not via the systems and abstractions that are easy for human minds to comprehend?
Framework sounds great in theory, but it's hard to justify nearly double the cost compared to a Lenovo T-series.