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

251–260 of 554 posts

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#251

Post by joe_the_user »

bnralt wrote: post #207
sudosysgen wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't get myself to agree with this. Indeed, it's true, horses don't create demand, but neither do unemployed humans. Our economy isn't centred around humans, it's centred around capital. Unemployable humans are as useless to it as horses, as they can't exchange their labour with capital owners (or become capital owners themselves). Unemployable people might want more, but will they get more? No, they won't.

I think there's two distinct ideas being discussed. Can people be unemployed because of structural, societal, or political reasons? Sure, and I think most people would agree. We have plenty of example of that happening - depressions, recessions, mass refugees, etc. But can people be unemployed because we run out of things for humans to do? That's what the video is arguing, but it won't be the case unless we've fully…

But can people be unemployed because we run out of things for humans to do?

-- You'll always have something that some other human wants the human X to do. Whether that other person can pay human X sufficient money to make that activity their job is the question. And it seems plausible you'll reach a point where the answer will be no for a lot of people. You can call that "structural" if you wish but it seems related to the marginal utility provided by a given person and that goes down as one finds automated alternatives.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#252

Post by bob33212 »

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.

Yes, There are a lot of people who make more money than they care to spend. Some of those people give the money away.

and also

No, when Larry Ellison built a 200 foot yacht, a Russian oligarch built a 250 foot yacht, The next guy will build a 300 foot yacht, etc.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#253

Post by BirdieNZ »

pgsimp wrote: post #240

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 sti…

I don't know if this completely answers your question, but it won't be high rent if a land value tax is implemented correctly.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#254

Post by Lichtso »

visarga wrote: post #108
ravi-delia wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 expon…

There is a manga series which is set in this concept of exponential self-replication technology gone wrong somewhere in the past (thus a futuristic dystopia):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blame%21

>> The "Netsphere", a sort of computerized control network for The City. The City is an immense volume of artificial structure, separated into massive "floors" by nearly-impenetrable barriers known as "Megastructure". The City is inhabited by scattered human and transhuman tribes as well as hostile cyborgs known as Silicon Creatures. The Net Terminal Genes appear to be the key to halting the unhindered, chaotic expansion of the Megastructure, as well as a way of stopping the murderous robot horde known as the Safeguard from destroying all of humanity.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#255

Post by spir »

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…

However, the horse struggles to be customer centric

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#256

Post by colinmhayes »

pgsimp wrote: post #243
colinmhayes wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robots building houses on cheap land due to mass work form home would make housing much cheaper. Robot doctors make healthcare much cheaper. Robot teachers make childcare/education much cheaper. Robot farmers + GMO make food much cheaper.

I don't think building costs are the main issue with availability of housing. You need the land to build on - and not just any land, but land in desired locations. How are the artificial mega cities in China doing? Didn't they build several cities from scratch that are supposed to house several million people each?

That's why the ability to work from home is important. Sure there will still be expensive cities, but living on cheap rural land will be much easier.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#257

Post by 11thEarlOfMar »

joe_the_user wrote: post #249
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 agree that the "new jobs are generated automatically" claim isn't supported by any good argument. But the horse analogy isn't good way to show this imo. I hate to be "specie-ist" but human beings have a remarkable ability to learn new skills and attain new abilities. Horses don't. The human consumption of human's time, attention and so-forth is at the center of the economy. Human consumption of horse time isn't all…

Yes, intuitively, over the last 50 years, the world population increased substantially, meanwhile, global poverty decreased manifold (90%?) over the last 50 years, and the vast majority of humanity is employed doing 'something'. Even with the greatly increased productivity of automation in farming and manufacturing, humans are creating new industries that build on what's been developed in the past.

What are the trends that will lead to mass unemployment, even decades hence?

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#259

Post by soperj »

colinmhayes wrote: post #172
soperj wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Pre-covid, Global wages and employment levels have never been higher. Global poverty levels have never been lower. Either way, I don't disagree that AI will replace some jobs, I'm just not sold on the horse story.

and? We still have people dying of starvation world wide. We have scads of homeless in the richest country on earth. Why do you think anyone will care at all?

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#260

Post by cschep »

sudosysgen wrote: post #175
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Horses aren't the center of the economy, though. It's fundamentally different. Horses might always want more and more things no matter how much they get. But they don't create demand in our economy, so we'll never know. No matter how much humans get, they'll always want more. And other humans will have to come up with ways to meet that demand. Sure - if we ever reach a time where the entire human race says "this is e…

I can't get myself to agree with this. Indeed, it's true, horses don't create demand, but neither do unemployed humans. Our economy isn't centred around humans, it's centred around capital. Unemployable humans are as useless to it as horses, as they can't exchange their labour with capital owners (or become capital owners themselves). Unemployable people might want more, but will they get more? No, they won't.

A horse can't change their circumstances the way humans can. A horse can't learn to provide different value. It can only be a horse.
Post reply on HN