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

101–110 of 554 posts

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#101

Post by adambaybutt »

nitwit005 wrote: post #94

> In the next five years, computer programs that can think will read legal documents and give medical advice. Bad medical or legal advice is completely possible. It exists now. Giving good medical or legal advice requires, at a minimum, being able to carry out a full conversation to investigate the problem, including understanding things not directly related to the field. There's no sign of getting that any time soon…

Depends how medical advice is defined, but AI has been shown to be better than humans in several contexts already, e.g. radiology.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#102

Post by visarga »

ravi-delia wrote: post #9
ralph84 wrote: 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 it possible to have growth that simply outpaces what a human could possibly consume?

We're already maxed out on information, tools, media and interactions.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#103

Post by csomar »

> democracy can become antagonistic as people seek to vote money away from each other.

...

> We should therefore focus on taxing capital rather than labor

I find it amazing that these "thinkers" don't see the irony. You are "afraid" that people are going to vote you away from your wealth via democracy; but then you feel privileged to decide how this wealth should be taxed. Since AIs are getting smarter than humans, maybe we should let them decide?

> and AI teachers that can diagnose and explain exactly what a student doesn’t understand.

Since AIs are smarter than humans, why bother teaching humans at all? Unless there is a point where a developed human brain could outsmart the AI, it seems to be a waste and emotionally guided.

> We could do something called the American Equity Fund.

Any solution that is not universal is bound the fail. These companies can move overseas to cut their tax bill. It also easier than moving now since all they need to move is data; electronics being already made in Asia.

The reality is, there is no place for humans in an AI driven world where AI is smarter than humans and robots can make stuff. Realizing that is the first step to move forward in this new world.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#104

Post by Aunche »

tvanantwerp wrote: post #26

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…

Property values generally rise because an area has a very attractive jobs market. Overall, it's a benefit to society to incentivize people with no income to move out an area with a lower cost of living. This incentivizes more people move there and do productive work, which can be taxed and distributed.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#105

Post by second--shift »

I read some time ago (I think as a link here) the following: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist...

One of my takeaways is that growth cannot exist forever; there is a thermal bound to how much energy (economy = energy consumption, if you reduce it enough) we can produce and consume. Another commenter posted that if you zoom out enough, economic growth is exponential. I tend to agree, at least backwards-looking, so I think of intervals of economic progress as "doubling" (ie, logarithmic instead of linear).

We only have a few more doublings before we hit some serious thermal discomfort. The "AI Revolution" as dreamed in the OP I think is largely impossible: if the AI/Robots/Whatever get sufficiently advanced they will require orders of magnitude more energy than we already consume, which would run the risk of cooking us all.

I would rather see someone or someones trying to break the economy = energy paradigm. At some point, we will be unable to generate more useful energy; I'd like to see us do more with less.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#106

Post by tvanantwerp »

larsiusprime wrote: post #95
notahacker wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even without the hypothetical AI effect on income, this is a proposal which will tax you 100% of the value of your property over a 40 year period whilst over the same period YC's LPs and founders will have paid just 2.5% of the [much higher] value of their companies. Now there are efficiency arguments in favour of taxing land to encourage its use and not taxing productive enterprises or their investors too heavily, b…

> which will tax you 100% of the value of your property If it's a property tax, yes. If it's a land tax, no. Under land tax you tax the "ground rent" value of the land, not what's built on it. "Ground rent" is what it costs to rent out your land if it was an empty lot with nothing on it. Property tax and land tax are very different things with very different effects.

In high-demand cities, the land is the expensive part—not the house on top of it.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#108

Post by visarga »

ravi-delia wrote: post #47
joe_the_user wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But again, it seems like there are physical limits to how much people can consume. Like, we can agree that if everyone had a machine that could magically summon up to 10 thousand cubic meters of material every day, we realistically would have universal material abundance. Even if we exceeded what the boxes could make, one or two dedicated to making more would result in runaway exponential growth that would speed up m…

> how close to universal replicators do you need to come

We'll probably reach technological self-replication singularity before AGI. I envision a small self replicating/repairing/transforming factory that could function based on local resources. Mostly 3d-printers, robots and tools for making tools.

But I think in reality there will be limited resources, energy and pollution we can all use, so we can't have our exponential utopia. Technology will be more like biology, and it will get good at recycling anything.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#109

Post by chishaku »

csomar wrote: post #103

> democracy can become antagonistic as people seek to vote money away from each other. ... > We should therefore focus on taxing capital rather than labor I find it amazing that these "thinkers" don't see the irony. You are "afraid" that people are going to vote you away from your wealth via democracy; but then you feel privileged to decide how this wealth should be taxed. Since AIs are getting smarter than humans, m…

> emotionally guided

> move forward

What do you mean by these phrases?

Can you elaborate on your framework for value?

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#110

Post by core-questions »

adambaybutt wrote: post #100
core-questions wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Phrasing things as an optimization problem can result in better, more efficient arrangements than how things are presently, but only within the limits that people are willing to accept. It also depends what we're optimizing for - if we naively set it for "maximum number of humans fed and cared for", we really are all going to be eating bugs and living in pods.

A society built via capitalism just gives people what they want; not maximizing some arbitrary objective function. We currently have no capitalist societies on earth.

Sounds like an instance of the No True Scotsman fallacy to me, friend. What is capitalism if not the systems that purport to be it? It's like saying "communism has never been tried". They tried _something_, and they certainly labelled it communism.

That said, I do find the Equity Fund idea interesting, though it's not entirely clear what this looks like in practice, especially for the unbanked, the mentally ill, homeless people, etc. who might not really know what to do with shares, since some of them don't really know what to do with cash, either. Seems to me these are the people most in need of uplift, no?

I'm not too worried about most lawyers getting automated out of a job anytime soon, after all, to the extent where I want to see the economy overturned for the likes of them.

Post reply on HN