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

461–470 of 554 posts

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#461

Post by morlockabove »

riskable wrote: post #341
Swizec wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> You can make a lot more and better AAA games if 50% of your time isn’t spent on life chores. That's what the robots are for! And they never complain, never need to sleep, and are always one software upgrade away from amazing new capabilities.

The robots will be making better AAA games than humans before they're able to clean a house as well as a human.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#462

Post by morlockabove »

Simon321 wrote: post #443
csbartus wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Realizing that is the first step to move forward in this new world. Right, we've become disposable. Up until the computer era we were part of the equation. We went to war, to vote, and we paid taxes - making ourselves useful for state and capital. Now, they don't need us anymore. We are a burden for the state (universal basic income) and capital plays its own game (high frequency trading). Samuel Butler was right i…

We can still vote, so they still need us. With the time freed up by AI we can become more informed voters.

You mean spend more time screaming at the other side on twitter, egged on by GPT-13?

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#463

Post by nathias »

we find new more specialized jobs, but fewer than we automate, we also create more 'jobs' to replace the jobs that are gone with some completely redundant human activity and pretend its a job

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#464

Post by throwawayffffas »

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…

As I understand it, the fund would also pay cash. You would get a share of the 2.5% of taxed equities and a share of the 2.5% property taxes. Owners of property with a value over the average would be essentially paying everyone else.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#465

Post by johbjo »

Many basic resources are now almost free in the sense that the market price barely covers cost of production/collecting. Vegetables and certain farm products are examples of this. Slightly out-of-date electronics. Many more things are like this. It reduces living costs.

This has had no effect on politics wrt to wealth distribution. Rather, decreasing living costs has resulted in increasing inequality because it reduces the perception of need for change.

AI in production brings a similar change to the economy as when Chinese labour started producing goods for the world. It will make shiny toys available to everyone, but it will have no effect on wealth or income inequality.

So, AI will result in even more "homeless" people with not only iPhones, but an abundance of all sorts of toys. Maybe even houses.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#466

Post by Andy_G11 »

Society is currently not ideally structured to realise much of human potential (setting aside how some individuals with immense initiative will nevertheless succeed). Piketty has described how wealth concentration arises and is perpetuated and has drawn a link to reduced overall productivity. He has also proposed a wealth tax to circulate cash and resources to combat stagnation and inequality - your tax proposals on capital seem similar. A change in the distribution of income across society might lead to an uplift in the origination and development of new concepts and ideas, but to tackle some ideas will still demand hubs of resource concentration in some fields, e.g. CERN, pharma labs, space exploration, quantum computing, etc. Perhaps enabling many more nuclei of independent development will result in a snowballing effect which will ultimately create more of these large scale resource hubs, but even so I think that there will have to be an adjustment in the collaborative protocols we use to really significantly increase the growth, development and employment of talent and potential that is latent and currently wasted. Still, a great and relevant article.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#467

Post by bushin »

hellbannedguy wrote: post #399
BurningFrog wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> About 96% of people used to work in agriculture. Today it's about 4%. Let's say the 96% number is from 1750, which I think is roughly right. World population then was ~800 million. Today it is ~7700 million. Most have jobs. The human workforce has expanded almost 10x in this period.

“World population then was ~800 million. Today it is ~7700 million. Most have jobs.” I doubt this. In the USA, we have an unemployment number, “able bodied, but not working, or looking for work.” If the 50’s, it was basically housewives. Today it’s a lot of people. (This might not be the exact wording the government uses.) My point is this number is huge, and never talked about much in the United States. I don’t thin…

Labor force participation rate: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.ACTI.ZS?location...

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#468

Post by auganov »

joe_the_user wrote: post #244
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…

One other thing I'd like to add. The scenario of AI mostly replacing people like doctors and lawyers involves bizarre paradoxes beyond whether deep learning "AI" works as advertised. Suppose you can train an "AI" to read legal papers or diagnose patients based on X-rays. That training is done from the data of real life lawyers and doctors actions. Suppose, best case scenario (very unrealistic imo btw), you have a com…

Some of it is just framing. You can replace a lot of what doctors do with regular tech and plain old organization. You could have done it for decades. Problem is regulations put a lot of limitations on who can perform what service. You can get the best well-informed advice from wherever, but you still need to go to a doctor for your prescription.

I could very well see a situation where "AI" is what finally gets regulators to loosen up, but what actually gets implemented will be traditional stuff that works. It may take a "surgery robot" to allow greater freedom in training people to perform surgeries.

Won't be surprised if in 20 years self driving cars will indeed come to dominate. But most "AI" will get dropped and roads will be retrofitted with something dead simple that assists cars in navigating (I believe that idea goes back to 50s or 60s too).

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#469

Post by simonh »

spoonjim wrote: post #414
BurningFrog wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very misleading metaphor. Horses were not workers. The were tools workers used. Farmers used horses to plow the fields. Transport workers used them to transport goods and people. As those workers got better tools to plow and transport, productivity increased, society got richer. There are also millions of old telegraphs, slide rules, and rotary phones "unemployed" across the world. The fate of these no long…

Guess what, 90% of humans are also tools that a small percentage of other humans use to accomplish their goals. Few people would argue that the job of “Amazon warehouse worker” is anything other than a tool for Jeff Bezos to become richer and more powerful. The person who has that job, from when they clock in to when they clock out, is functionally equivalent to a horse. Amazon software engineers are the same, they j…

As BurningFrog says, please find an actual human analogy. You can argue until your face is blue that this applies to humans, but if so you should be able to find an actual example.

Meanwhile developed world economies are close to full employment and have many more vacant positions than unemployed people. We have a skills problem, not an unemployment problem.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#470

Post by majjgepolja »

sytelus wrote: post #450
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…

Our goal shouldn’t be to have jobs but rather no one having to go to work at all. That’s the age of abundance that is possible through AI and robotics at some point. Our goal should be 100% unemployment for humans. We should be focusing on art, outdoors and other creative pursuits. Future generations will be surprised we lived so that we can have “job”.

What about 1% people doing hard work but most being satisfied and lazy with the status quo? Idle mind is devil's something.

I'd rather have something like 15-hour workweeks.

Post reply on HN