41–50 of 554 posts
> In the next five years, computer programs that can think will read legal documents and give medical advice. In the next decade, they will do assembly-line work Wait, medical advice is easier than assembly line work??
"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.
Are we failing "miserably"? I mean, global poverty is down, down, down.[0] Famine mortality is down, down, down (in spite of population going up, up, up). [1] Not everyone gets an Escalade and a 5k square-foot home, but arguably they shouldn't be using those anyway. But it seems like in terms of what people "need" (food, shelter, clothing), globally humans are enjoying unprecedented prosperity, despite the enormous g…
> 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.
the wealth-hoarders are interfering with this...
Imagine: 1) I'm the owner of a single family home 2) My income drops to roughly zero because of AI 3) My property values go through the roof 4) I now owe 2.5% of these sky-rocketing property values every year, to be paid from my non-existent income Doesn't this scenario lead to me either selling my "gifted" shares to pay property taxes, or ending up a renter at best and homeless at worst? I can imagine this proposal…
Yep. I saw this movie before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The question isn't lifestyle in the abstract. Everything that people buy today is specifically intended to impel more buying. Whether that's cars, houses or sugary foods. The situation is incredibly different than simple "everyone gets what they need" society. Take a look at just about any book on consumerism
Obviously that's the extreme case, and the question is how close to universal replicators do you need to come before people can't want more things fast enough.
Sold on the premise that when AI gets here it will change everything. What I don't have a good grasp on is how fast it will come. Recent feats of AI are very impressive, but it's hard for me to put it on a trendline that would line it up with massive changes coming with 10 years. Predictions around AI have made similar claims for the last 50 years. Why is it different this time?
> If everyone owns a slice of American value creation, everyone will want America to do better: collective equity in innovation and in the success of the country will align our incentives. I kind of doubt that. At Google we're paid in part with shares of GOOG, but at Google's scale that's just treated as cash compensation. At my level, nothing I do affects the stock price, and most Googlers feel this way. Sure, I wan…
I apply this theory to many diverse subjects- voting, finances, human health and car maintenance (once one system is suboptimal or impaired, others often follow). Keep your sockets gemmed. :)