Live data from Hacker News

Moore's Law for Everything

moores.samaltman.com

51–60 of 554 posts

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#51
post #37

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?

I try to keep up with the industry, just to see where it's going. From what I can tell, AI (in the general sense) is so flexible it can be applied to just about anything with observable data points, which is basically everything. Are these applications useful? I think right now they are impactful, not necessarily useful. EG: we can already copy someone's voice perfectly with just a small amount of audio using AI. But in practise, not much has come from this incredibly remarkable feat.

So what does AI need to get to the next level? Not much but time to mature, all the tools are already there.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#52
post #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.

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.

> Is there any limit to lifestyle inflation?

If there is, it's somewhere beyond launching sports cars into orbit.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#53
post #25

> 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??

[deleted]

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#54

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…

A variant of this is responsible for the rise of oligarchy during de-Sovietization in Russia. Citizens were given shares of state companies, but people's basic needs weren't met. This resulted in most shares being sold to whomever would buy them for any amount of money or basic resources. This, along with the general power vacuum, led to the rapid consolidation of massive amounts of power in the hands of whoever managed to wield local power for their benefit at the time--those who became the oligarchs.

Bill Browder writes a bit about it in his book, Red Notice. The book is also a great cautionary tale that the whole narrative that we can spread democratic ideals by making business deals with with corrupt/despotism regimes is smoke. It leads to more corruption, less moral authority, and further empowered despots.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#55
post #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.

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.

I've also spent mental energy on this, about 4-5 years, and recently I've been reaching a conclusion (in a great walkabout about AI, ethics, and the meaning of everything).

My conclusion: individual satisfaction is bounded, as long as we have bounded brains. First I should mention that the best principle I've found to underlie life is that we should maximize or optimize some kind of experience of consciousness, for every conscious entity. It's hard to define precisely what that entails, but we have quite good intuition: your life should be rich in activity, in interaction with others, in learning, in thought, in seeing, hearing, thinking; of course, not so rich as to be overwhelming and collapse the whole thing or leave us unable to digest or grasp or understand (at least a part of) what we're experiencing. I don't claim to be completely original: Wilheim von Humboldt for me is one of the great thinkers of conscious motivation (he lived in the 18th century).

"I am more and more convinced that our happiness or unhappiness depends far more on the way we meet the events of life, than on the nature of those events themselves." -- WvH

Being clear: what matters is not the experiences themselves, i.e. the input/output, but what the various consciousness apprehend. What goes on in your brain. It doesn't matter you're at the most beautiful beach in the most beautiful sunset behaving joyfully and peacefully if internally you're depressed or in despair.

"The true end of Man, or that which is prescribed by the eternal and immutable dictates of reason, and not suggested by vague and transient desires, is the highest and most harmonious development of his powers to a complete and consistent whole." -- WvH

You can only make an individual so complete, so harmonious with itself. Our brains have about 100 billion neurons, i.e. a finite number, and there's only so much you can activate those connections. Really the goal is not with any single individual -- our goal should be with every conscious being. That's why we should not plan individually, we should plan as a society. A billionaire can only get so happy -- he can keep linearly stacking jet skis and race cars and yatchs but his happiness won't follow (linearly). We should realize we are all part of a society, as a whole, and ideally be completely indifferent among individuals (i.e. everyone deserves as much happiness as we can collectively get them).

In other words, we should take the Golden Rule literally. (of course, in practice, not everyone can be responsible for every other individual, but it should be our ultimate guiding principle, really, as individuals and society, unmistakably): every conscious being has the same value to yourself as yourself.

Because individual satisfaction is bounded, this allows maximizing the practically unbounded (because of almost unbounded entity numbers) satisfaction of society as a whole, currently about 8 billion individuals. We need to move past egoism. I don't think an egoistical civilization, as was Western Society for much of the 20th century, can reliably go much further than we've come (see: climate change, rising political instability, fluctuating inequality, stagnating quality of life).

I'm not arguing for any political system, I'm arguing for a cultural-social-technological outlook of the entire society. I'd label it 'Universalism' (but that's taken), so perhaps 'Conscious Universalism', or 'Concious value universalism'.

That's how we move our entire civilization forward, achieve better political stability, how we're able to tackle mega projects like engineering the climate and rethinking our global supply chain, how we can allocate massive resources to space exploration, space colonization, prevention of extinction events (like asteroid impacts, etc.), how we move definitely past threat of nuclear annihilation (a nuclear conflict, still not completely out of imagination, could perhaps still collapse society).

How to do it? I think part of it is simply enlightenment, discussion, writing and reading; the other is indeed recreating our institutions, including our economic and political systems (focused around this goal).

This century is when we decide whether we become the Borg or the Federation. Cylon or Human. Dalek or Doctor. (or just slowly collapse... hopefully not; we have potential)

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#56
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the wealth-hoarders are interfering with this...

How does one hoard wealth? Am I made poorer because Bezos owns 9% of his own company?

His workers are poorer because his company's enormous valuation comes from the surplus value they produce but do not receive as compensation. You might be poorer if you own a small business those workers would frequent if they had more money.

Edit: You might also be poorer if you tried to compete with Amazon and were crushed like a bug by their anti-competitive practices.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#57
post #34

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.

There's certainly people who eschew technology and live in a historical fashion. They might even be happier for it. If there is a natural (not physical out of resources) limit where humans feel satiated i doubt we're anywhere near it. If we do hit it, wait a bunch of generations and they'll be more humans.

With exponential growth, we might be closer than you'd think. Clearly people always want more, but the rate at which we want more seems like it has to have to have a limit. At the very least, it can grow faster than the population can (almost automatically, since more people increase growth as well).

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#58
post #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.

"This revolution will erode enough biome for every human to be dependent on the industrial complex to survive, while animals are basically left to starve."

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#59
There are some really smart ideas in here, and some really smart assessments of existing policies.

The thing I was most taken aback by was Sam's suggestion to tax privately held land, and capital (as opposed to labor tax).

I would love to have Sam and PG go toe to toe and discuss how Sam's proposal is different from the wealth tax post PG made. I don't immediately see how Sam's idea avoids the "wealth tax compounds" problem (his words not mine) that PG is worried about.

http://paulgraham.com/wtax.html

Post reply on HN