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

131–140 of 554 posts

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#131

Post by visarga »

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…

> Since AIs are smarter than humans, why bother teaching humans at all?

Just give humans cell phones and social accounts, and let them eat fake news all day. Problem solved.

But the flip side is that creatives and inventors will be empowered to achieve more.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#132

Post by colinmhayes »

nindalf wrote: post #123

> We will discover new jobs–we always do after a technological revolution CGP grey put this well > Imagine a pair of horses in the early 1900s talking about technology. One worries all these new mechanical muscles (cars etc) will make horses unnecessary. The other horse reminds him that everything so far has made their lives easier - remember all that farm work? Remember running coast-to-coast delivering mail? Rememb…

I don't necessarily disagree but that's really not a good analogy. Horses aren't people. When their jobs disappear no one gives a fuck. No one speaks up for their interests. People will not go so easy. They are able to create amazing things if given the opportunity. No one wants mass human unemployment.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#133

Post by wmf »

msikora wrote: post #130

> technological progress follows an exponential curve This is a mantra that I keep hearing, but if I compare the progress from 1900 to 1960 and then from 1960 to 2020, it almost seems like it has been flattening... Sure, we have internet and fancy computers, but the progress from 1900 to 1960 was immense: air travel, electrification, proliferation of automobiles, immense progress in medicine, space exploration, nucle…

He's just talking about performance, not qualitative progress.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#134

Post by est31 »

DenisM wrote: post #89
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.

Status is a big deal. A wealth differential allows one to order other people around, building up status. Those others then feel the need to get out from under the yoke, or at least to be in the position to order around other-other people. All of this requires continuous wealth accumulation to which there is no limit. You would have to redefine status to end this game.

Also note that a situation where humanity's productivity is expanding is way better from a social standpoint than one where it is stagnant. The first allows positive sum games to exist. The second is a zero sum game. Of course there is a limit to growth as the reachable universe is finite.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#135

Post by Judgmentality »

colinmhayes wrote: post #132
nindalf wrote: post #123

> We will discover new jobs–we always do after a technological revolution CGP grey put this well > Imagine a pair of horses in the early 1900s talking about technology. One worries all these new mechanical muscles (cars etc) will make horses unnecessary. The other horse reminds him that everything so far has made their lives easier - remember all that farm work? Remember running coast-to-coast delivering mail? Rememb…

I don't necessarily disagree but that's really not a good analogy. Horses aren't people. When their jobs disappear no one gives a fuck. No one speaks up for their interests. People will not go so easy. They are able to create amazing things if given the opportunity. No one wants mass human unemployment.

You realize it's an allegory, right?

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#137

Post by colinmhayes »

AlexandrB wrote: post #56
missedthecue wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Labor theory of value lmao. Amazon workers are richer because they've been given an opportunity they otherwise wouldn't have. If they could have a better job they'd take it.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#138

Post by soperj »

colinmhayes wrote: post #132
nindalf wrote: post #123

> We will discover new jobs–we always do after a technological revolution CGP grey put this well > Imagine a pair of horses in the early 1900s talking about technology. One worries all these new mechanical muscles (cars etc) will make horses unnecessary. The other horse reminds him that everything so far has made their lives easier - remember all that farm work? Remember running coast-to-coast delivering mail? Rememb…

I don't necessarily disagree but that's really not a good analogy. Horses aren't people. When their jobs disappear no one gives a fuck. No one speaks up for their interests. People will not go so easy. They are able to create amazing things if given the opportunity. No one wants mass human unemployment.

We already have mass human unemployment. What's the average daily wage? It's not that low because everyone is gainfully employed.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#139

Post by colinmhayes »

naringas wrote: post #121
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…

> 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. taking this point and running off with it. why bother having humans at all? let's all become a simulation and live within a computer.

That's the goal. Infinite jest.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#140

Post by larsiusprime »

tvanantwerp wrote: post #106
larsiusprime wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Right you are, and the land tax is specifically designed to destroy the speculative activity that causes it to increase forever.
Post reply on HN