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

231–240 of 554 posts

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#231

Post by kart23 »

joe_the_user wrote: post #78

In the next five years, computer programs that can think will read legal documents and give medical advice. Aside from the other points, taking "AI" as it exists in it's present form (deep neural networks and related) as specifically the bringer of unlimited wealth certainly puffs up the various "AI companies" notably OpenAI (It should be noted that OpenAI's most famous product, GPT-3, can generate strings that sound…

In 1995, a self driving car drove 98% of the way across the country. Think what these same people predicting AI today would have predicted in 1995. They would probably believe we were 10 years away from self driving cars in every household. We still dont have a mass produced level 3 system in 2021.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_self-driving_cars

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#232

Post by NortySpock »

aksss wrote: post #166
imtringued wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you could restrain those pesky humans or prevent them from reproducing then it would be a valid concern.

As prosperity increases, growth booms but then predictably falls below replacement rate. So humans kind of do this on their own if you can get through the boom period without breaking things too badly.

But why would we not see "those who desire to have kids" out-reproduce those who don't have kids, within a few generations?

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#233

Post by dvdhnt »

sour-taste wrote: post #169

I think that this essay assumes the possibility of infinite growth. That runs into the reality that we are actively running into the limitations of our interactions with the natural world. What else is climate change but an indication that we've reached the limit of what we can produce using our current technology. Now, it is possible that we can find a way to reduce our impact on the earth while continuing to grow,…

Well, that's the dirty secret, isn't it?

It's hard to get this crowd to admit that "growth" isn't infinite.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#234

Post by mlac »

birdsbirdsbirds wrote: post #83
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.

Why should there be a limit? If you can command robots to build anything you can ever imagine, who doesn't want his own Versailles - with impressive towers like the Burj Khalifa? Who doesn't want to fly their jet or space rocket just for fun to the moon and back? And humans will be humans. There will be new games, like drone wars on distant planets, where any production capacity and energy will be used. And since eve…

I don’t. There is the consideration that more money comes with more problems. You can say that more money would fix those problems, but at the end of the day, you still had to spend energy thinking about it.

You can quickly approach a situation where time is the limiting factor. In this case I think that the private jet or extremely fast transportation allows you to get some time back. Beyond that you might have one or two projects that you really enjoy, like a palace, but you don’t really have enough time to handle much more. Elon is a good example: he’s got a few projects that he really cares about and does them at an extreme scale. He effectively has unlimited resources but he would not make any progress on his three major initiatives if he was much more fragmented than he is.

And if you run this to the extreme, the true cost of overconsumption creates the problem of environmental damage and negative externalities on others that can wind you up like Marie-Antoinette.

Plenty of other people are happy with minimalism. And that can be hard for some folks to understand if they aren’t minimalists.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#235

Post by Jommi »

adambaybutt wrote: post #101
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.

Source?

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#236

Post by lincolnq »

xiphias2 wrote: post #50

I have an idea for sharing wealth: Why not create a non-profit organization that democratizes AI by sharing its models openly with everyone?

I know you are being sarcastic, but I don't know if everyone understands Sam Altman's motivation for running OpenAI the way it's being run. Sam is trying to create AI which causes the greatest benefit for humanity. That's openAI's mission. Open sourcing everything now would not achieve the mission.

In case the "why" is not obvious: AI progress is limited by a) great research talent; b) money -- specifically being able to invest in compute. If OpenAI were to open source everything, they would not be able to raise the money they need to invest in compute, which would cause a death spiral in their ability to attract and retain their researchers. They need to have a story for why they will make money in the short term to continue being a top tier AI research org. And since AI is "winner take all", it is likely worse for the world if a less altruistic company takes all the talent and source code.

If your point is just that OpenAI is a misnomer now, I agree :). It's not open. But I do think they have settled on a surprisingly good point in solution space (the capped-profit company, the charter, etc); I don't see ways to validly criticize the company from an altruism perspective.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#237

Post by stickfigure »

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.

> We had enough wealth for everyone to have what we need a long time ago.

That's obviously not true today: There isn't enough coronavirus vaccine to go around.

There almost certainly will be enough eventually, but human beings live in the now. There will be another pandemic someday. Or some other natural disaster that creates localized or temporal scarcity. We can't just spin up a new lifesaving drug or a million new homes overnight. Maybe someday we will?

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#238

Post by lincolnq »

justicezyx wrote: post #181

I am more and more amused by Sam's ambition of describing so-called plans for Humans, while at the same time is 1 year younger than myself, who had co-founded a failed startup loopt based on sharing location information; and joined YC because of largely Paul Graham and him being somewhat liked each other without much deep connections, and eventually become chairman of YC; then now co-founded OpenAI as the one working…

What do you think he should be doing instead?

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#239

Post by heleninboodler »

Aunche wrote: post #155
heleninboodler wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say it was wasteful or make any judgments about it. It's just a fact that a level of lifestyle that allows a person to launch his personal sports car into space has been achieved.

I mean I don't think that quite qualifies as lifestyle inflation. A Roadster in Space just costs Elon $100,000 since his business planned to launch the rocket anyways. That's nothing compared to the price of a megayacht.

Except getting a $100k car shot into space also probably requires personally building the company that is "launching the rocket anyways." The SpaceX waiting list to launch junk into space for laughs is a very exclusive club.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#240

Post by pgsimp »

I live in a city with high rents. What would it look like if everybody had a shot at fulfilling their economic dreams? Let's say their dream is to live in the center of the city, in one of those flats that now cost 2 million dollars.

So society is obliged to give everybody a shot at that 2 million dollar flat, no matter what their line of work or their qualifications are. How is that supposed to work?

Some things still are limited and will probably always be limited, unless everybody can live in virtual reality in their ideal world.

Post reply on HN