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

After the AI Crash

potsandpansbyccg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 244 posts

Re: After the AI Crash

#201

Post by neonstatic »

unknownfuture wrote: post #193
neonstatic wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not financial advice, but: Honestly it’s pretty hard and I wouldn’t recommend it. Shorting stocks and getting into bonds / default swaps but the system is broadly rigged against small players doing well here. Ie in the Big Short see everything that was needed for two guys to bet with their own money. Do you base your knowledge on anything other than a very mediocre movie? If an "investor" believes the market will s…

The problem is the old saw about the market staying irrational. You can't time the market reliably. Ultimately the base advice remains sound even if it's couched in a bit of conspiracy: diversify and allocate your assets based on your risk profile, as informed by your retirement timeline.

> You can't time the market reliably.

There's an entire profession doing that: traders. But for most people, yes, it is not worth it. No argument there. I just don't like conspiracy theories and that line of thought, it's cheap and stupid.

Re: After the AI Crash

#202

Post by addaon »

Marha01 wrote: post #105
zero_shift wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firstly, this generation of AI is not going to take away all jobs Secondly, we already know what happens when sectors face mass unemployment from the 1980s, when steel and coal workers were laid off en-masse: nobody came to help Accelerationists want to see their jobs go up in smoke because they think that if enough white collar workers are impoverished, everyone who was formerly poorer than them, will chip in to res…

> Firstly, AI is not going to take away all jobs Human-level AGI is by definition able to take away all human jobs. > Secondly, we already know what happens when sectors face mass unemployment from the 1980s, when steel and coal workers were laid off en-masse: nobody came to help There is a massive difference between 20-30% of people in a country being unemployed (historical sector-wide collapses), and 80-100% of peo…

> Human-level AGI is by definition able to take away all human jobs.

What definition is this? At best it would be able to take jobs that currently rely on human intelligence. There's a lot of ditch diggers, prostitutes, athletes, models, acrobats, painters, etc, etc out there who have nothing to fear from the first-order availability of disembodied intelligence. (There may be impacts from second-order and higher effects, but this is hard "by definition.")

Re: After the AI Crash

#203

Post by Marha01 »

memonkey wrote: post #190
Marha01 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but I think we should separate human economic value from the true purpose of our existence. If AI can replace us in economically valuable tasks, we will have no choice but to do so. The economic value part should be looked at objectively.

What is the true purpose of our existence?

That is a very good question, perhaps without an objective answer. But it's definitely not a 9-5 job, at least for me.

Re: After the AI Crash

#204

Post by Marha01 »

watwut wrote: post #183
vanuatu wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

at human-level AGI there would be no need for people to 'buy' when the machines can just do

If people dont buy, company does not have money nor income. Simple as that. There will be no need to use those machines, because you cant sell the output of those machines. So, you have starwing hopeless population not buying your products. Which means you cant produce. Which means, you eventually become part of that starwing population (or they kill you in some outburst).

You are still thinking in terms of monetary economics about a situation where money is no longer needed.

In a monetary economy, if you need X, you need the money to buy it. In a post-AGI economy, if you need X, you ask your human-level robots to make it (including making more robots). No money involved at all.

Re: After the AI Crash

#205

Post by Marha01 »

watwut wrote: post #184
andrekandre wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

its basically the end of capitalism... for better or worse...

To compare, great depression had 25.6 unemployment rate. It helped the WWII to happen. It wont be the end of capitalism. But, it would mean major outbursts of violence and major civil war or revolution. Where AI companies will be (deservely) the hate targets. But my point really was that it is economic nonsense.

> Where AI companies will be (deservely) the hate targets.

That depends on what those companies do in response. Giving away robot-produced stuff for free could quicky earn them praise, instead of hate. If human-level robots enable massive increases in efficiency and production, at least one of the companies will decide to mitigate any risks in this way.

Re: After the AI Crash

#206

Post by whateveracct »

vrganj wrote: post #72
cmiles8 wrote: post #35

It’s not a question of if but when at this point. To parallel to The Big Short this is the point in the movie where folks realize it’s mathematically impossible for things to not implode and so players are quietly positioning themselves for that eventuality before things are allowed to blow. It’s been a dramatic shift these last six months but everywhere I look now folks are quietly preparing their battle armor to su…

How would one position oneself as an individual investor if one believed this thesis?

have a healthy emergency fund and career network

Re: After the AI Crash

#207

Post by Marha01 »

addaon wrote: post #202
Marha01 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Firstly, AI is not going to take away all jobs Human-level AGI is by definition able to take away all human jobs. > Secondly, we already know what happens when sectors face mass unemployment from the 1980s, when steel and coal workers were laid off en-masse: nobody came to help There is a massive difference between 20-30% of people in a country being unemployed (historical sector-wide collapses), and 80-100% of peo…

> Human-level AGI is by definition able to take away all human jobs. What definition is this? At best it would be able to take jobs that currently rely on human intelligence. There's a lot of ditch diggers, prostitutes, athletes, models, acrobats, painters, etc, etc out there who have nothing to fear from the first-order availability of disembodied intelligence. (There may be impacts from second-order and higher effe…

> ditch diggers

AGI-level robots can do this.

> prostitutes, models, acrobats, painters, etc

You have a point. Perhaps I should have said "overwhelming majority of human jobs", instead of "all human jobs".

Re: After the AI Crash

#208

Post by 21asdffdsa12 »

vrganj wrote: post #125
21asdffdsa12 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open a history book- before the us century- this stuff was the norm. Its what is to be expected after the us- retreats inwards. China blockading japan. The world blockading china. Russia blockading eastern Europe and vice versa. The shitty old world pre the ww2 order.

Indeed. But the US can't do this and also assume people will still accept it as hegemon and protector of free trade. It's lost those titles when it started behaving that way.

It loses that title the day people stop using the petro-dollar, not a day sooner. And the fact its still used- is the biggest vote of no-confidence to all alternative actors out there.

Re: After the AI Crash

#209

Post by vrganj »

Marha01 wrote: post #204
watwut wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people dont buy, company does not have money nor income. Simple as that. There will be no need to use those machines, because you cant sell the output of those machines. So, you have starwing hopeless population not buying your products. Which means you cant produce. Which means, you eventually become part of that starwing population (or they kill you in some outburst).

You are still thinking in terms of monetary economics about a situation where money is no longer needed. In a monetary economy, if you need X, you need the money to buy it. In a post-AGI economy, if you need X, you ask your human-level robots to make it (including making more robots). No money involved at all.

Money is just an abstraction for resources. You'll still need land, energy, minerals etc.

Re: After the AI Crash

#210

Post by watwut »

charlie90 wrote: post #187
watwut wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 80-100% unemployed This would mean that there are no AI companies at all, because there is no one to buy their products. So, they have nowhere to get money for whatever they want to sell.

money is just an abstraction over value, it is not value itself. if AGI is achieved, the AI labs will just use AGI to produce what they need instead of trading for it, which would include full vertical integration on all products.

No they wont, because producing requires more then just "intellingence". AGI itself produces nothing.

Also, if there are no money so 80%-100% of people move to barter instead of money to trade stuff. Same thing, just less effective.

Post reply on HN