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

261–270 of 554 posts

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#261

Post by bnralt »

darawk wrote: post #220
bnralt wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 fu…

Well, there's slight of hand here on CGP Grays part (and sleight of hand in other parts of the video as well), since horses are not doing work out of their own volition and to meet their own needs. Correct for that, and the same will be true for horses - they're not going to run out of work to do until they've fulfilled their desires.

Now, I'm talking about typical desires as they stand now. Obviously you can have people creating increasingly exotic and bizarre desires to the point where it's impossible to satiate them all ("I want to own Antarctica"). It's also possible to hit resources limits, but that's a separate problem from "running out of work because of automation."

Consider a case where person A builds widget X, and person B builds widget Y, and they trade with each other. Automation takes over, they lose their jobs. If they continue getting the widgets they used to trade for (which are now created automatically), they simply have the same wealth as before but more time. If they don't have the widgets, they're now detached from the new automated widgets both in production and consumption. There's no reason they couldn't carry on the same work as before and continue to trade with each other. This might require societal and political will (they might need some sort of support to reach their previous arrangement), but if the desire for their old work is there and not being met, then there is work to be done.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#262

Post by aerosmile »

I respect Sam and believe that his thinking is usually a few years ahead of mine - with passage of time, I generally tend to agree with his statements more and more. He seems really bullish on AI, and while he might be a bit biased based on his current role, I think that his public statements are truly authentic because he's putting his money where his mouth is (he left a coveted role at YC for his current role at OpenAI).

That just makes me worry that we're likely to enter an AI cycle in entrepreneurship that will be characterized by high barriers to entry for new entrepreneurs. I have so many ideas for future companies, and none of them will be feasible if in each vertical I have to compete against companies with mature AI capabilities. I suppose there is a possibility of someone offering AI as a service that will be good enough to go up against the FAANG companies, but I imagine that anyone with such capabilities might be more likely to just own the whole opportunity (eg: Red Antler switching from helping startups with brand building to Red Antler building their own brands). I think there are still opportunities out there for a VC-backed company that starts out in a garage, but that window seems to be closing - for both, entrepreneurs and VCs as well (FAANG companies are not going to take any venture capital).

I really hope I am wrong and would love to hear counterpoints (apart from the usual "they have been saying this for the last 50 years and it always turned out different"). It's important to realize that 50 years ago the world was very different for entrepreneurs, and I have no reason to believe that the current cycle is just that - a cycle that will pass and that the world will return to its previous state of making it exceptionally difficult to go up against big companies. The best counterargument I can offer is PG's essay on the history of corporations and how startups will become a permanent part of our future (don't have the time to look up the link, but hope that someone else can find it).

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#263

Post by nine_k »

hospadar wrote: post #165
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 hope we discover less work! I so agree that increasing automation doesn't always mean more Jobs That Make Money (even if it might continue to for a while yet). Maybe when there's less work for humans to do we just... work less? and get more?

You can do it right now — become a contractor or a consultant.

You will immediately notice that nobody likes it when work is done slowly. Working for 4 hours a day is only possible if you complete a paid portion of work at that time (e.g. teach 2-3 classes). Nearly any project that has work for multiple days would benefit from people working on it 24/7 and completing it faster, but it's often too expensive.

So your less work schedule often becomes a high-energy consulting gig when you work 12 hours a day, and then a couple months of leisurely coasting.

I have no reason to think that the future would be materially different. Just finding the gigs is going to become harder. This very future has already arrived for many low-skilled workers, like those in Amazon warehouses; they never know if there will be demand for their service today, and need to apply daily.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#264

Post by adam_arthur »

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…

As technology advances, more "wealth" can be created with fewer inputs, of course.

Greater wealth means a bigger "pie" to split. Inequality obviously comes into question here, but objectively there is more total wealth that can be spread around, so it's a net good, if we can optimize the distribution.

It also means that the contribution of an individual can create more value. In some ways this leads to inequality, where the most capable people are able to capitalize on technology and make a lot more money than was possible in the past... see: any of the FAANG founders.

Taking the thought experiment to a logical extreme: in a hypothetical world where 100% of the supply chain is automated, people would no longer be required to work. So it must be true that there's some level of automation that will produce a net decrease in jobs. At that point some form of UBI likely makes sense.

Though I'm doubtful we'll ever reach that kind of state. Realistically people will continue to divert their efforts into new things.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#265

Post by mrkramer »

Pandabob wrote: post #182

A little off-topic but I’ve been thinking about technological progress and its impact on inflation recently. In 2018 Jay Powell partly blamed Amazon (and others) for pushing prices down so much that the fed wasn’t able to hit its inflation targets [0]. Isn’t Sam’s vision also inherently deflationary? If consumer prices keep dropping due to technological progress, shouldn’t we keep printing money? I’m still a little s…

I was thinking the same how deflation is good for society? Reducing costs of production, increasing efficiency and having decent market competition brings prices down and technological progress enables all of that.

Not anytime soon prices will be so low that all people can afford everything they want. Luxury goods and premium pricing are here to stay.

Maybe he was referring to Trekonomics: The Economics of Star Trek [1]. Post-scarcity moneyless society.

Here is excerpt from Wikipedia: "The third chapter talks about the replicator, the machine that makes Star Trek's post-scarcity possible. Post-scarcity's meaning is the infinite social wealth. The replicator is as a metaphor for automation, and an endpoint of the industrial revolution. Crucially, in the Star Trek's society it and its produces are public good."

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

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#266

Post by Swizec »

boring_twenties wrote: post #221
bnralt wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> That's what the video is arguing, but it won't be the case unless we've fully satisfied all of our desires. If we haven't, there are, by definition, still things to do. Obviously true, but that doesn't mean the things still left to do can be done by anyone. In a world where there's not enough food or housing, everyone can be gainfully employed, since just about everyone can learn to plant seeds or cut wood. In a wo…

> But what are the people who aren't programmers or artists supposed to do?

Keep the programmers and artists happy.

You can make a lot more and better AAA games if 50% of your time isn’t spent on life chores.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#268

Post by neilparikh »

dane-pgp wrote: post #111
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…

> I now owe 2.5% of these sky-rocketing property values every year Just as a UBI gives people an income floor, I think that a land tax should come with a personal allowance below which you are exempt. To do some rough calculations, the US state with the highest population density is New Jersey, at 1,210.1 people per square mile, which equates to 23,038 square feet per person. The average American house size is appare…

The key thing about a land value tax is that it's based on land value, and not land area, so the allowance should also be based on value and not area, for it to work right.

10,000 sq ft in Manhattan is much more valuable than 10,000 sq ft in a rural area, and so it doesn't make sense that both should be treated equally.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#269

Post by statstutor »

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…

> That's what the video is arguing, but it won't be the case unless we've fully satisfied all of our desires. If we haven't, there are, by definition, still things to do.

If wealth continues to become increasingly centralised, the wealthy might be able to have all their desires fully satisfied, while the poor won't have enough power to demand that - which potentially creates a vicious cycle.

Then the existence of sufficient jobs is fraught.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#270

Post by ksdale »

kbutler wrote: post #84
ksdale wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GDP per capita of the world is only about $12,000. That's technically "what we need," food, clothes, and shelter for a family of 4, but on a per person basis, it's below the federal poverty line in the US. I don't think it's correct to say that we had enough wealth a long time ago. There are a lot of places in the world that are still desperately poor by any measure, not just by the standards of the wealthy. And…

GDP per capita of $12,000 implies family of 4 is $48,000, because "per capita" is per person in that family.

Yeah that's why I said for a family of 4. $12,000 is hardly enough for food, shelter, and clothing for a single person.
Post reply on HN