Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Moore's Law for Everything

moores.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 554 posts

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#61

Post by bpodgursky »

lucasmullens wrote: post #42
aksss wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We're improving rapidly, but I think we need to set our expectations higher. According to givewell.org, it only costs between $3000 and $5000 to save a life. There's a lot of people who could give that amount and don't, so there's a lot of lives that could be saved that aren't. And that's a pretty miserable failure to me.

Well, a few decades ago, it took maybe $200 to save a life. We're certainly trending right.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#62

Post by ravi-delia »

heleninboodler wrote: post #52
ravi-delia wrote: post #9

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.

> Is there any limit to lifestyle inflation? If there is, it's somewhere beyond launching sports cars into orbit.

See that's exactly the thing. We can point to excess today and say "How could that be sustainable" but it seems like the novelty would wear off, no? Like in some hypothetical future where resources are 1000x more available, would people launch 1000 cars into space? It seems unlikely. Somehow I feel like there is some inelasticity to consumption that we just haven't reached yet. I'm not quite sure why I feel like that though.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#64

Post by ben_w »

missedthecue wrote: post #43
fnord77 wrote: 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?

Sorta. Wealth like that is control and power, and while governments theoretically have absolute power over business, actually using those powers can break things. If the government owned the same shares, you would have slightly more direct control over what Amazon does in practice. Probably. Perhaps.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#66

Post by adambaybutt »

xrd wrote: post #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"…

Sam's proposal doesn't avoid the wealth tax compounds simple arithmetic that PG notes.

And yes many important questions for society to answer on this, e.g. how much does is disincentivize entrepreneurs if they have half of their wealth taxed away over the decades compared to current taxation system?

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#67

Post by aksss »

lucasmullens wrote: post #42
aksss wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We're improving rapidly, but I think we need to set our expectations higher. According to givewell.org, it only costs between $3000 and $5000 to save a life. There's a lot of people who could give that amount and don't, so there's a lot of lives that could be saved that aren't. And that's a pretty miserable failure to me.

We can always do better, that's for sure. Charitable giving is massively high in the US as a percentage of GDP though[1]. Individual giving is the highest source of that money[2]. That's a testament to something good, I think. That more people could give more and don't is a failure at an individual level, but systemically the globe is reducing poverty on its current track.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitabl...

[2] https://givingusa.org/giving-usa-2020-charitable-giving-show...

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#68

Post by AndrewBissell »

As with so much Silicon Valley stuff, I think the latest evangelizing for AI is probably just laundering military and counterinsurgency tech as some kind of utopian consumer godsend. Obviously AGI will remain a pipe dream, but what we will get is autonomous robotic soldiers with no conscience (that can be counted on to put down unrest without questioning their orders), or listening software that can monitor everyone's communications to identify targets in real time.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#69

Post by jfk13 »

matthalvorson wrote: post #48
cbau wrote: 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'd recommend the book Life 3.0, the author surveys a large number of AI researchers to answer this timing question (I think 95% said AGI is guaranteed in the next 50 years iirc), and also discusses why this time is different than the times in the past, like in the 60's when a group of researchers thought they would make significant progress towards AGI over the course of a summer

I suspect that if someone asked the same questions a decade ago, or two, they'd have gotten similar explanations of why "this time is different".

AGI within the next 50 years? I don't think we have any idea, really. We don't even know what "intelligence" means.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#70

Post by bawolff »

AlexandrB wrote: post #41
bawolff wrote: 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??

For AI, probably yes[1]. Arbitrary sensing and motion are surprisingly hard. Any problem that can be expressed as pure data is easier by comparison. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox

I would assume a big difference is its easy to redesign assembly lines to be easy for computers. We cant do the same for our bodies.
Post reply on HN