171–180 of 272 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that the economic matters are not the only relevant issues, and I would argue they're not the most important ones either
When it comes to what actually gets encoded into reality, it certainly is the most salient factor
The biggest issue we face today is the incessant nature of economists to try to reshape reality to match economic theory, and not the other way around
the most stupid article i've read in the economist
> Third, measure everything. The common view that AI is already leading to lay-offs and raising electricity bills is probably wrong. But without better statistics it is hard to be sure.
Why are they syndicating high school economics papers on AI?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>In many cases radically worse jobs for the first hundred years; living standards for those people dropped noticeably as they went into industrial mining and factory work. source?
https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a feeling that comparing a safe, sustainable energy source to large language models is disingenuous. If you support LLMs and the field, you can just state it outright, without insincere comparisons.
If you oppose LLMs and the field because of pure irrational instinct, like those people in the past, you can just state it outright, no need for complicated arguments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but it's trivially obvious that AI is different from previous technological automation, since with AI it's ALL jobs being automated, starting with white collar ones, not just some narrow segment. What was true with previous automation, that some jobs disappear, but new ones are created in their place, will not be true of AI, because AI is a general purpose technology capable of doing the new jobs it creates just…
I agree was going to comment that yes it does feel slightly different because in most cases technology narrowly targeted specific niches at the time, that when replaced could at least in hindsight be seen to likely benefit the majority at the cost of the existing laborers. Whereas in this case most of the top brass of AI do push it as something more akin to "we think this will replace practically all human labor". An…
Well, let's assume that the AI companies building and pushing this tech are right, and it WILL take your job (and every other job you may consider career pivoting to). Presumably the government isn't going to let you actually starve, as long as they have the means to do that, but it does mean your comfortable life, built on your own labor, is gone, and now you are barely surviving on government welfare.
So, what potential benefit (even hypothetical) would offset that? An AI cure for cancer perhaps? Personally I'd rather have a nice life and take my risks with cancer, which anyways human intelligence will solve in due course if it is solvable.
This "AI will take ALL the jobs" isn't just some sci-fi far distant future. It's already acknowledged that all work that can be done in front of a computer can be automated. Did you work at home during covid (not just developer - manager, teacher, a lot of jobs) - if so then your job can easily be automated in the near future.
OK, so you'll be able to retrain as a plumber or nurse perhaps, and work with your hands. We'll all be plumbers, except that doesn't scale. We'll all be self-sufficient farmers perhaps. We've seen this before, and no reason it can't happen again.. most of the power and the money in the hands of a very few, and the rest living as peasants.
Note that physical jobs being replaced by AI also isn't some sci-fi far distant future, although it will start with factory jobs, driving jobs, then move to ones requiring a greater level of physical ability (e.g. plumber), and perhaps human touch (nurse). Look at Japan to see where things are headed. Many countries have declining populations, hence declining GDP and tax receipts; most countries have turned to immigration as the solution to this, but Japan has decided to turn to technology instead - robotics and AI. Replacing human jobs with robotics and AI isn't a sci-fi dream in Japan - it is the official government policy that they are working on, and that includes things like care for the elderly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This could be true, but I think it amounts to wishful thinking. The human empowerment phase of AI is transitory and brief. Once you get into RSI and AGI the human is increasingly left out and disenfranchised. The multiplier of your personal effectiveness directly proportional to how much the AI is doing relative to you. Being 2x more effective is great - AI does half the work. 5x, 10x, 100x? When the AI does 99% of t…
Yes, I agree, but the relevant debate isn't "pro vs anti-AI." That's a fight only one side can win. The relevant debate is: "human empowerment vs disempowerment". It's still a long-shot, but at least there's a specific target that a majority may be able to agree on. (Not saying you were specifically saying either.)
People have been made to believe by very influential people (dario, sam, elon etc) that AI will replace them. As a result people are getting angry. Who did not see this coming? Why da f*#$ do they have to continue developing a technology which they think will replace droves of people by machines?? There is nothing sexy about it. There is nothing cool about it either. Imagine a taxi driver facing his family knowing he…
> Why da f*#$ do they have to continue developing a technology which they think will replace droves of people by machines?? There is nothing sexy about it. There is nothing cool about it either. This argument alone doesn't really work because literally billions of peoples jobs and livelihoods have been replaced throughout history from the explicit development of technology that replaces the need for human labor. The…
This argument alone works just fine. If you explicitly threaten billions of people that you will make them redundant then you better focus on building a guillotine proof neck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do people still conflate “sectoral changes in the labor market” with “humans become zoo animals”? The scale just seems fundamentally different.
> The scale just seems fundamentally different. Not at all. I doubt LLMs will result in a 90x drop in the overall labor workforce. The agricultural shift was likely greater than the shift due to LLMs will be.
That’s fine, but one of those assumptions has to be the case for your statement to be true. If they meet or exceed all productive human capacities at lower cost, are not stopped by regulations or some kind of near insurmountable “exponential cost of intelligence”, then this is completely utterly different than the agriculture shift.
My generals observation about people like you is that you assume “the future form of ai is just a chat bot, like today” and that is just not the case, and it’s not what anyone is worried about. Many of us are “playing” with real agents, grafting together agentic memory systems, kicking around early experimental harnesses, seeing what kind of self learning loops we can hack, perfecting evals, wiring in eyes and ears and a heart-beat to these things. And those of us who are often take a look at the Frankenstein result and go “ya, this could completely replace us with enough iterations”.
We should at least be scared enough to seriously consider the possibility that in the future there is no productive use for human labor, only capital.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course. Those people back then were stupid and irrational and couldn't see they were wrong. Today we are much more enlightened and smart, and our convoluted arguments, that sound very smart and somehow reach the same conclusion that the technology must be stopped, are totally right. We're not opposed to AI due to irrational fear and NIMBYism, like those simpletons before.
Excellent work responding to the argument put in front of you! You are so rational!
But we really aren't. We're still driven by irrational sentiments and fears. We hate AI because it's new and feels icky, and will bring change and we don't like change. We would prefer the 2020s to be frozen in time forever and ever (although we're more than happy to benefit from progress that happened before our time, which upended the lives of other people long dead).
So that's it, there's no argument. The only argument is "I hate AI because fuck it", which is much more sincere. I don't need to hear about water or electricity or cognitive decline or any other made up stuff that sounds intellectual.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you oppose LLMs and the field because of pure irrational instinct, like those people in the past, you can just state it outright, no need for complicated arguments.
Yeah, that's also fine. However I am personally willing to side with the group which's arguments for the cause are environmental and societal impact over the one which's rebuttal to that is the fact we were wrong once 40 years ago. That's just me though.
Check this out: https://x.com/PessimistsArc