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

491–500 of 554 posts

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#491

Post by thebigspacefuck »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #378

I don't buy this whole idea of technological progress being exponential, let alone monotonic. The average piece of software made in 2021 does less, runs slower and is more difficult to maintain than the average piece of software from 2001. Consumer-grade CPUs haven't seen a drastic increase in performance for around a decade too. I'm still running an i7-2600k that was released in 2010. A current-tech Ryzen 7 has mayb…

It’s almost like if progress isn’t happening in the one particular area you care about, it isn’t really happening at all?

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#492

Post by kilroy123 »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #378

I don't buy this whole idea of technological progress being exponential, let alone monotonic. The average piece of software made in 2021 does less, runs slower and is more difficult to maintain than the average piece of software from 2001. Consumer-grade CPUs haven't seen a drastic increase in performance for around a decade too. I'm still running an i7-2600k that was released in 2010. A current-tech Ryzen 7 has mayb…

I agree. Not to mention is it all really that different? I'm a little bit older, and admittedly I was living in the future when I was younger, but 20 years ago wasn't that different for me.

Back in 2001, I was sitting on a computer even a laptop! I was reading conversations on the internet, watching videos, and listening to music. Not much has changed in 20 years. I have a better pocket computer. I had a smartphone back in 2003. Yeah the iPhone > than blackberry, but not by that much.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#493

Post by potatoman22 »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #413
cma wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compare voice recognition in 2001 to 2021.

To be honest with you, if you look at the technology as a whole, I prefer what we had in 2001. Back then it was completely unusable (as opposed to now, where it's only borderline unusable), but at least it wasn't shoved down your throat by smartphone manufacturers and Google.

Yeah, let's just stop all technological progress. That way it can't be exponential!

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#494

Post by legulere »

devoutsalsa wrote: post #384
legulere wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDP per capita also counts children. $48,000 for a family of four sounds perfectly fine to me.

The assumes nothing ever goes wrong. One serious illness or injury and you’re bankrupt.

That’s what (mandatory) insurances are for. Not insuring against events you cannot deal with alone is gambling.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#495

Post by scatters »

statstutor wrote: post #323
scatters wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Continues? The world is more equal than it ever has been, at least since the invention of agriculture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_eq... World Gini coefficient for wealth has increased from 0.804 to 0.904 between 2008 and 2018, where 1 means that a single person holds all the wealth .

Wealth inequality is immaterial; what matters is (lifetime) consumption inequality. Income inequality is an imperfect substitute measure.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#496

Post by scatters »

thyrsus wrote: post #318
scatters wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Continues? The world is more equal than it ever has been, at least since the invention of agriculture.

In western economies, Piketty showed that equality peaked approximately in the 1950's, and has been dropping since. (Almost) no one recommends we have another world war to decrease the assets owned by the rich, but Piketty, like the original article, also recommends a wealth tax (this article includes the significant refinement that the tax be on corporations and not individuals; Piketty does not go into details for…

Western economies? What about the rest of the world?

Citation: World Bank. "Poverty and Prosperity 2016 / Taking on Inequality"[1].

1. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/2...

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#497

Post by Cilvic »

gnramires wrote: post #55
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.

I've also spent mental energy on this, about 4-5 years, and recently I've been reaching a conclusion (in a great walkabout about AI, ethics, and the meaning of everything). My conclusion: individual satisfaction is bounded, as long as we have bounded brains. First I should mention that the best principle I've found to underlie life is that we should maximize or optimize some kind of experience of consciousness, for e…

Could you mention where Wilhelm von Humboldt shared These thoughts?

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#498

Post by nickpp »

sudosysgen wrote: post #474
nickpp wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The brilliant people that stayed in the USSR had no choice - they were kept there by force either directly (not allowed to leave) or indirectly (leave but your family will pay the price). But they all wanted to leave. The more you knew how much better your life could be in the west, the more you hated staying.

See, I don't know if that's true. The main counter evidence to your hypothesis were the defections of scientists and engineers to the USSR, the amount of brilliant people that regretted the fall of the USSR, and so on. For example, one of my brilliant math teachers was from a Soviet state, and had the opportunity to leave all along - he only did so as the USSR fell and he did not see any prospect in the East anymore.…

See, I know that is true. I was unlucky enough to grow up behind the iron curtain. I know the situation directly from the choices faced by my parents and their friends and after its fall I watched the best of my teachers slowly but surely emigrate to Canada or the Western Europe.

You can't really understand how it was unless you lived it. First of all, patriotism ceased to exist, except for propaganda. Struggle and fear - abject fear - replaced patriotism as the driving emotion. We ended up hating our country - we're still trying to re-learn how to love it 30 years later.

The ones in elevated status were collaborating with the authorities and the secret police. They ratted out on their friends and family. Everybody hated and feared them because of that.

The freedom was, of course, gone, and we got used to that. Freedom is just not that important when you're hungry. But the feeling that best described our state of mind then was: hopelessness. We did not, could not hope for a better future, for better times for us or our children. We could not see any escape, any chance at change. Because as individuals, there was nothing we could do. We were completely robbed of our agency, of our power, of our rights. The past, present and future was a single color: gray.

People who somehow went to the West came back changed. They just could not believe one could live with so much freedom, choices and wealth. Their stories inspired others. I was maybe 12 and I remember clearly dreaming up ways of running out of the country, to my father's absolute horror. I would cry rivers if my own children would have to go to through that.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#499

Post by jodrellblank »

qeternity wrote: post #442
jodrellblank wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " We’ve tried socialism. " I don't remember from school the bit where Mr Socialism said "let the workers sieze the means of production so they can shutdown the means of production, because they are lazy and stupid". "define:Socialism"[1] - "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively". NB. that it involves production , and is…

> Have you never seen or heard of volunteers? Yes, they are obviously doing the work for other reasons. > There are countries where the unemployed get money, e.g. the UK, and yet most people still work. How does this fit into your claim? You aren’t getting it. Those people still work because they can earn more than what the unemployment is. If all of a sudden you said even if you work, you’ll only earn the unemployme…

> "Yes, they are obviously doing the work for other reasons."

Yes, and that disproves your claim that people only work for money, and without more money people won't do more work.

> "You aren’t getting it. Those people still work because they can earn more than what the unemployment is." If all of a sudden you said even if you work, you’ll only earn the unemployment benefit, then nobody would work.*"

Volunteers earn no extra money for their work, and yet still work. Many people work unpaid overtime out of loyalty for their employer / coworkers / customers / patients, many people work out of passion and interest and hobbying ("starving artist" trope).

And, again, you're propagandising "Socialism" changing from "people get money without working" to "people can't get more than a fixed limited return on their work", which again it isn't. But let's go with that definition - if everything collectively owned, the more stuff there is the more stuff is collectively owned, so the more benefit everyone gets. When the Federal Government builds more roads, you personally get more roads you can drive on as a benefit. So even if Socialism was "you can't earn more than the minimum wage {because the collective takes it from you!}", you are part of the collective, so it still wouldn't be the case that people got no more benefit for producing more, as you claim.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#500

Post by ksdale »

legulere wrote: post #494
devoutsalsa wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The assumes nothing ever goes wrong. One serious illness or injury and you’re bankrupt.

That’s what (mandatory) insurances are for. Not insuring against events you cannot deal with alone is gambling.

At $12,000 per person, you can't insure against much at all without seriously cutting into the food and shelter.
Post reply on HN