Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

garymarcus.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 242 posts

Re: The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

#121

Post by johnthewise »

KaiserPro wrote: post #21

Its a shame that your standard futurologist always the most fancyful. Talks of exponentials unabated by physics or social problems. As soon as AI starts to "properly" affect the economy, it will cause huge unemployment. Most of the financial world is based on an economy with people spending cash. If they are unemployed, there is no cash. Financing works because banks "print" money, that is, they make up money and loa…

Dollar is agreement between humans to exchange services and goods. You wouldn't use USD to trade with aliens, unless they agreed to it. Aliens agreeing to USD would mean we have something to offer to them.

In the event of mass unemployment level AI, cash stops being the agreement between humans. At first, cash value of services&goods converge to zero, only things that hold some value are what AI/AI companies care about. People would surely sell their land for 1M$ if a humanoid servant costs 100 dollars. Or pass a legislation to let OpenAI build 400GW data center in exchange for 100$ monthly UBI on top of your 50$ you got from a previous 20GW data center permit.

Re: The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

#122

Post by breuleux »

sveme wrote: post #30
KaiserPro wrote: post #21

Its a shame that your standard futurologist always the most fancyful. Talks of exponentials unabated by physics or social problems. As soon as AI starts to "properly" affect the economy, it will cause huge unemployment. Most of the financial world is based on an economy with people spending cash. If they are unemployed, there is no cash. Financing works because banks "print" money, that is, they make up money and loa…

That's actually my favourite answer to the Fermi paradox: when AI and robot development becomes sufficiently advanced and concentrated in the hands of a few, then the economy will collapse completely as everyone will be out of jobs, leading ultimately to AIs and robots out of a job - they only matter if there are still people buying services from them. People then return to sustenance farming, with a highly reduced p…

The service economy will collapse, finance as a whole will collapse, but whoever controls the actual physical land and resources doesn't actually need any of that stuff and will thrive immensely. We would end up with either an oligarchy that controls land, resources and robots and molds the rest of humanity to their whim through a form of terror, or an independent economy of robots that outcompetes us for resources until we go extinct.

Re: The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

#123

Post by johnthewise »

no_wizard wrote: post #70
lakeeffect wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We really need to establish a universal basic income before jobs are replaced. Something like two thousand a month. And a dollar for dollar earned income credit with the credit phasing out with at a hundred grand. To pay for it the tax code uses GAAP depreciation and a minimum tax of 15% GAAP financial statement income. This would work toward solving the real estate problem of private equity buying up all the houses…

It should really be tied to the ALICE cost of living index, not a set, fixed amount. Unless inflation ceases, 2K won't hold forever. It would barely hold now for a decent chunk of the population

AI that drives humans out of workforce would cause a massive disinflation.

Re: The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

#124

Post by yoyohello13 »

ipython wrote: post #25

If we have concerns about unregulated power of AI systems, not to worry - the US is set to ban regulations on “artificial intelligence systems or models” for ten years if the budget bill that just passed the house is enacted. Attempts at submitting it as a separate submission just get flagged - so I’ll link to it here. See pages 292-294: https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr1/BILLS-119hr1rh.pdf

It's unsurprising this stuff gets flagged. Half of the Americans on this site voted for this because "regulation bad" or some such. As if mega corps have our best interest at heart and will never do anything blatantly harmful to make a buck.

Re: The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

#126

Post by SoftTalker »

alecco wrote: post #88
andoando wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communism here we come!

Right, tell that to Sam Altman, Zuck, Gates, Brin & Page, Jensen, etc. Those who control the AIs will control the future.

And they would pretty quickly realize what a burden is created by the existence of all these people with nothing to do.

Re: The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

#127

Post by ge96 »

mattlondon wrote: post #57

I think the big thing that people never mention is, where will these evil AIs escape to ? Another huge data center with squillions of GPUs and coolers and all the rest is the only option. It's not like it is going to be in our TV remotes or floating about in the air. They need huge compute, so I think the risk of an escaping AI is basically very close to zero, and if we have a "rogue" AI we can literally pull the plu…

compress/split up and go into star link satellites

Re: The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

#128

Post by KaiserPro »

no_wizard wrote: post #80
KaiserPro wrote: post #21

Its a shame that your standard futurologist always the most fancyful. Talks of exponentials unabated by physics or social problems. As soon as AI starts to "properly" affect the economy, it will cause huge unemployment. Most of the financial world is based on an economy with people spending cash. If they are unemployed, there is no cash. Financing works because banks "print" money, that is, they make up money and loa…

Why wouldn't AI simply be a new enabler, like most other tools? We're not talking about true sentient human-like thought here, these things will have limitations, both foreseen and unforeseen, that only a human will be able to close the gap on. The companies that fire workers and replace them with AI are short sighted. Eventually, smarter companies will realize its a force multiplier and will drive a hiring boom. Abs…

> Why wouldn't AI simply be a new enabler, like most other tools?

but it is just another enabler. The issue is how _effective_ it is. It's eating the simple copy-writing, churnalism, pr-Repackage industry. looking at what google's done with the video/audio, thats probably going to replace a whole bunch of the video/graphics industry (which is where I started my career.)

Re: The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

#129

Post by KaiserPro »

alecco wrote: post #83
KaiserPro wrote: post #21

Its a shame that your standard futurologist always the most fancyful. Talks of exponentials unabated by physics or social problems. As soon as AI starts to "properly" affect the economy, it will cause huge unemployment. Most of the financial world is based on an economy with people spending cash. If they are unemployed, there is no cash. Financing works because banks "print" money, that is, they make up money and loa…

I keep hearing this and I think it's absolute nonsense. AI doesn't need money or the current economy. Yes, our economy would crash, but they would keep going. AI-driven corporations could buy from one another, and countries will probably sell commodities to AI-driven corporations. But I fear they will be paid with "mirrors". But, on the other hand, AI-driven corporations could just take whatever they want without pay…

"AI" as in TV AI, might not need an economy. but LLMs deffo do.

Re: The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

#130

Post by SoftTalker »

api wrote: post #5

I'm skeptical. Where will the training data to go beyond human come from? Humans got to where they are from being embedded in the world. All of biological evolution from archaebacteria to humans was required to get to human. To go beyond human... how? How, without being embodied and trying things and learning? It's one thing to go where there are roads and another thing to go beyond that. I think a lot of the "foom"…

Evolution doesn't happen by "trying things and learning." It happens by random mutation and surviving (if the mutation confers an advantage) or not (if the mutation is harmful). An AI could do this of course, by randomly altering some copies of itself, and keeping them if they are better or discarding them if they are not.
Post reply on HN