Moore's Law for Everything
moores.samaltman.com
Moore's Law for Everything
1–10 of 554 posts
Re: Moore's Law for Everything
#2> “Moore’s Law for everything” should be the rallying cry of a generation whose members can’t afford what they want."
Ugh. Moore's law doesn't apply to everything, and in fact doesn't apply to most things, and wishing it did won't change that.
I think Vaclav Smil did an effective diagnosis of this at the Driva Climate Investment Meeting: https://youtu.be/gkj_91IJVBk?t=1132
Re: Moore's Law for Everything
#3> “Moore’s Law for everything” should be the rallying cry of a generation whose members can’t afford what they want." Ugh. Moore's law doesn't apply to everything, and in fact doesn't apply to most things, and wishing it did won't change that. I think Vaclav Smil did an effective diagnosis of this at the Driva Climate Investment Meeting: https://youtu.be/gkj_91IJVBk?t=1132
Altman isn't arguing that Moore's Law DOES apply to everything but rather than we should work toward such a world.
It is good for society if the costs of goods and services decrease over time to allow a given income/wealth level to live a better life over time.
Re: Moore's Law for Everything
#4> “Moore’s Law for everything” should be the rallying cry of a generation whose members can’t afford what they want." Ugh. Moore's law doesn't apply to everything, and in fact doesn't apply to most things, and wishing it did won't change that. I think Vaclav Smil did an effective diagnosis of this at the Driva Climate Investment Meeting: https://youtu.be/gkj_91IJVBk?t=1132
Altman isn't arguing that Moore's Law DOES apply to everything but rather than we should work toward such a world. It is good for society if the costs of goods and services decrease over time to allow a given income/wealth level to live a better life over time.
I'm all for driving down the costs of things low on Maslow's hierarchy, but it's arguably more reasonable in the short term to put effective public policy in place than hope the singularity gets here (an exaggeration, but not exceptionally so, considering "Moore's Law for Everything").
Tech people keep trying to fix people problems with tech. ~47k people die each year in the US from a lack of healthcare. Other countries don't need Moore's Law to fix this, for example [1] [2]. Conversely, it's fine that Elon runs around as Technoking as long as the batteries are pumped out of Gigafactories at full speed. Technology fixes for technology problems, people fixes for people problems. We don't need more wealth ("The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed" -- Gibson). America is one of the wealthiest country in the world. We need quality of life floors and more equitable distributions of what passes for and enables wealth.
With all of that rant said, I really love Sam's idea about the American Equity Fund [3]. It's long overdue, and something that the Federal Reserve could administer today with FedAccounts as the target of distributions from taxes on productive concerns. Sam's a smart person, and I hope he can sell the idea with a pitch deck to those who need to be sold on it. The issue of equity (social and economic) has reached a crescendo, and it would do a disservice to county and citizens alike to let the opportunity go to waste.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=healthcare+outcomes+by+count...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_univers...
Re: Moore's Law for Everything
#5> “Moore’s Law for everything” should be the rallying cry of a generation whose members can’t afford what they want." Ugh. Moore's law doesn't apply to everything, and in fact doesn't apply to most things, and wishing it did won't change that. I think Vaclav Smil did an effective diagnosis of this at the Driva Climate Investment Meeting: https://youtu.be/gkj_91IJVBk?t=1132
Altman isn't arguing that Moore's Law DOES apply to everything but rather than we should work toward such a world. It is good for society if the costs of goods and services decrease over time to allow a given income/wealth level to live a better life over time.
If wishes were fishes, nobody would go hungry.
Re: Moore's Law for Everything
#6"This revolution will generate enough wealth for everyone to have what they need, if we as a society manage it responsibly."
I worry that this is already the case, and we are already failing miserably. Globally we seem to have enough resources to feed, clothe, and shelter the global population and in a number of cases (see the USA) to be unable to do so.
Re: Moore's Law for Everything
#7> This revolution will generate enough wealth for everyone to have what they need
We had enough wealth for everyone to have what we need a long time ago. No matter how much we have humans always want more. AI won't change that.
Re: Moore's Law for Everything
#8> “Moore’s Law for everything” should be the rallying cry of a generation whose members can’t afford what they want." Ugh. Moore's law doesn't apply to everything, and in fact doesn't apply to most things, and wishing it did won't change that. I think Vaclav Smil did an effective diagnosis of this at the Driva Climate Investment Meeting: https://youtu.be/gkj_91IJVBk?t=1132
[deleted]
Re: Moore's Law for Everything
#9> This revolution will generate enough wealth for everyone to have what they need We had enough wealth for everyone to have what we need a long time ago. No matter how much we have humans always want more. AI won't change that.
I've spent what is likely way too much mental energy wondering about this, and I'm no closer to an answer. Is there any limit to lifestyle inflation? Is it possible to have growth that simply outpaces what a human could possibly consume? Intuitively it seems obvious that there should be something like that, but in the 1800s our growth today would seem like it should be enough.
Re: Moore's Law for Everything
#10> This revolution will generate enough wealth for everyone to have what they need We had enough wealth for everyone to have what we need a long time ago. No matter how much we have humans always want more. AI won't change that.
I've spent what is likely way too much mental energy wondering about this, and I'm no closer to an answer. Is there any limit to lifestyle inflation? Is it possible to have growth that simply outpaces what a human could possibly consume? Intuitively it seems obvious that there should be something like that, but in the 1800s our growth today would seem like it should be enough.
Read some Culture novels.