341–350 of 400 posts
This is self-reported: remember the 1000 Indians that were watching people shop at the Amazon Go stores? Amazon told us it was all "sensors" because it fit their company narrative to do so. I am not saying that Amazon doesn't have 750k robots and hasn't laid off 100k people... but they usually have some seasonality, plus, the quoted number is from 2021, the height of at-home shopping. "The world's second-largest priv…
It's clear that technological development creates a shift in jobs, i.e some jobs are lost, but new ones are created as a result. Whether the total #jobs increases or decreases is debatable. The issue that I see addressed less often is that the new jobs require by definition, a higher skill set. (You wouldn't displace 100 manual labor workers with a machine that requires 105 workers to maintain). So by definition, the…
Just like the Turing test turned out to be the wrong problem, AGI is the wrong goal. As long as AI can stoichastic parrot its way to success, who cares if it's AGI? My washing machine broke and I want my robot to fix it. it doesn't need AGI to diagnose and fix the problem, it just needs to have seen that in the training data. The real shift comes when the robots are dexterous enough to fix each other. that's when no…
Dexterity isn't the issue, it's the lack of training content. Also, I would be happy with a real-time feed of a robot telling ME, a dexterous being, what I should do to repair something. I don't have access to such technology.
This is self-reported: remember the 1000 Indians that were watching people shop at the Amazon Go stores? Amazon told us it was all "sensors" because it fit their company narrative to do so. I am not saying that Amazon doesn't have 750k robots and hasn't laid off 100k people... but they usually have some seasonality, plus, the quoted number is from 2021, the height of at-home shopping. "The world's second-largest priv…
Agreed. These numbers are being cherry-picked. From Amazon quarterly filings[0][1], here's their employees count: - Q3 2019: 750,000 employees - Q4 2019: 798,000 employees - Q1 2020: 840,400 employees - Q2 2020: 876,800 employees - Q3 2020: 1,125,300 employees - Q4 2020: 1,298,000 employees - Q1 2021: 1,271,000 employees - Q2 2021: 1,335,000 employees - Q3 2021: 1,468,000 employees - Q4 2021: 1,608,000 employees - Q1…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eugenics
Sure, who's volunteering to be the first one? For sure I won't volunteer for it :-)
Almost everyone does step 1, but very few people do step 2.
This is self-reported: remember the 1000 Indians that were watching people shop at the Amazon Go stores? Amazon told us it was all "sensors" because it fit their company narrative to do so. I am not saying that Amazon doesn't have 750k robots and hasn't laid off 100k people... but they usually have some seasonality, plus, the quoted number is from 2021, the height of at-home shopping. "The world's second-largest priv…
Agreed. These numbers are being cherry-picked. From Amazon quarterly filings[0][1], here's their employees count: - Q3 2019: 750,000 employees - Q4 2019: 798,000 employees - Q1 2020: 840,400 employees - Q2 2020: 876,800 employees - Q3 2020: 1,125,300 employees - Q4 2020: 1,298,000 employees - Q1 2021: 1,271,000 employees - Q2 2021: 1,335,000 employees - Q3 2021: 1,468,000 employees - Q4 2021: 1,608,000 employees - Q1…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...and they are building it for NASA's Artemis program. SpaceX evaporates the moment the juicy billion dollar public contracts dry up. Mars is still a pipe dream. You might as well give the credit to Edgar Rice Burroughs for as far as realizing it has come.
"SpaceX evaporates the moment the juicy billion dollar public contracts dry up." So, not in the foreseeable future, given the new Space Race with China. Ofc the government is an important customer for any launch provider (not just SpaceX), given that a lot of current space activity is military in nature. That just comes with the territory. Edgar Rice Borroughs died before the first man-made rocket reached the orbit.…
I agree, but the point was they are tied to NASA and NASA's projects for the foreseeable future, not that they are going away tomorrow.
"But I don't think that manned flight to Mars is wild and unattainable fantasy"
It wasn't too long ago you were talking about colonization. So which is it? Colonization or a manned flight?
Yeah I believe a manned flight is possible. If we were really motivated it would have been possible before my lifetime, certainly before SpaceX.
Colonization is leaps and bounds beyond that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>yes, a growing economy requires higher-skilled work, but that's good because that work comes with higher pay. The problem, of course, is that wages stagnated from '99 to 2014 and the job participation rate has been decreasing since 2000 while cost of living and general production increased; so no, in a dynamic market work does not necessarily come with higher pay. It actually wouldn't really make sense for all new w…
wages stagnated, not total compensation which continued to grow employee preferred form of compensation has just shifted towards other benefits
More like Congress-imposed (through tax incentives)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first crewed mission to Mars is very likely going to be a join SpaceX-NASA mission... to set up a crewed research station. Basically the same thing as Artemis Base Camp, except further away. Yes, SpaceX wants to ship millions of people to Mars, but realistically they are several decades away from even starting that. You want to get a small permanent settlement on Mars (like a crewed research station), and get som…
I don't think anyone can say what will 'very likely' happen, but NASA often hires many contractors and also does much work internally (e.g., at JPL) for a major project. Also, there may be other national space programs partnering in the mission.
Not saying the dream won’t eventually come true, but it if it does, it will take many decades. Come 2100, I think there will be a lot less than 1 million people on Mars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry, why would an AGI be interested in programming? My kids are AGI, and they're not interested. I think there's a real moral conundrum when we say "programmer AGI" because, I think, we're implicitly talking about terminating every non-programmer AGI, to meet our labor force whims. Replace "programmer" with intellectual task of your choice.
Your kids are artificial general intelligence?