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

Bill Gates: The turbulent AI era is here

gatesnotes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 241 posts

Re: Bill Gates: The turbulent AI era is here

#141

Post by debo_ »

dfxm12 wrote: post #97
debo_ wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I support UBI and wealth taxes, but I also think generally that will be a difficult transition in terms of social upheaval. There are so many people I know who are financially well-off but completely fall apart when there is no visible professional hierarchy to give them meaning. One would hope that this would still go down better than destituting large percentages of the world population, but I wonder.

Based in your first two sentences, I think your understanding of UBI is mistaken. You seem to be under the impression that people don't or can't have a job when there is UBI. This is not the case. If you don't believe me, just look at Alaska. Everyone enjoys some sort of benefit, tax break, subsidy, etc. from the government. UBI is the same thing in the form of a regular, universal transfer payment. Nothing more, not…

I do understand UBI. I was referring to the previous context that AI would introduce mass loss of jobs and overall reduced employment, not specifically to UBI being a replacement for jobs.

Re: Bill Gates: The turbulent AI era is here

#142

Post by whoiskevin »

swed420 wrote: post #55
sophrosyne42 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Election denialism is unbecoming of anyone with a brain

> Election denialism is unbecoming of anyone with a brain Convincing argument you have there, but the choices we're provided between shit sandwich A and shit sandwich B are the problem, not which one wins.

No your choice was between a competent leader and a con man. When people type what you type it seems obvious you are attempting to avoid responsibility for choosing the con man. I blame everyone that has this "there was no good choice" bull. That is exactly what it is an excuse for blowing up everything and claiming no responsibility.

Re: Bill Gates: The turbulent AI era is here

#143

Post by ydat »

lanfeust6 wrote: post #127
pkphilip wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. Expecting the super rich to be concerned a lot about the poor - especially when they aren't useful as employees, is quite a stretch.

Their wealth is more contingent on our consumption than employment status. If that goes, then you're looking at a zero-sum society where no new wealth is generated. Ultimately people will remain enterprising status-seekers. Rich people can already sit around with their wealth doing fuck-all excepting consuming, and they don't.

[dead]

Re: Bill Gates: The turbulent AI era is here

#144

Post by lanfeust6 »

soulofmischief wrote: post #131
lanfeust6 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is akin to arguing "nothing ever changes or improves in Liberal democracies", when policy history doesn't reflect that. Large parties represent large coalitions, so there are more compromises and things happen slower, but they still happen. Not always for the better, as we're seeing when populists are elected.

This take completely ignores the amount of money in politics and that both parties have funding from overlapping sources which in turn represent how similar the two parties are on certain key issues such as the Palestinian genocide.

Notwithstanding that this sum is smaller than people think, seeing bipartisan stances does not in itself reflect a failure; it can just as easily be a good thing. All this reveals is that you have a pet issue that isn't being serviced well currently by the 2 parties, but tides and voter sentiment change; within a few short years most people have soured on Israel, and this will be reflected in forthcoming elections.

Re: Bill Gates: The turbulent AI era is here

#145

Post by tytt »

ShutUpPedo wrote: post #54
simianwords wrote: post #14

It’s a good thoughtful piece. If I may suggest, the main problem and I mean the actual main problem are those people who underestimate the capabilities of AI. The ones who think it hallucinates all the time, unreliable and mostly useless. The average person thinks this technology is overhyped (like Emily Bender) so how would one even begin to have a conversation with them on the risks?

[flagged]

He’s a strange creature

I keep seeing his posts full of waffle and zero insight - it’s pollution for my brain

Re: Bill Gates: The turbulent AI era is here

#146

Post by ydat »

ActionHank wrote: post #57
dostick wrote: post #13

> We have to think now about how to reduce job losses so that everyone can share in the prosperity that AI creates. And I thought he is a smart man. This is so last century thinking. We need to prepare that there will definitely be no jobs for everyone and that will be falling all the time, it’s not a one-time event you should “prepare for”. There’s nothing to prepare, we already have funds and productivity to feed a…

The funny thing is that the wealthy and powerful don't realise that a collapse of that scale means that every switches to professional guillotine builder over night. There is no preparing for that. I doubt we get there to be honest, they all have wealth and power because there are consumers with money. No more consumers, no more wealth and power.

[dead]

Re: Bill Gates: The turbulent AI era is here

#148

Post by well_ackshually »

asdf88990 wrote: post #18
debo_ wrote: post #10

> I believe we should tax AI tokens and robots. Right now, if you’re an employer and you hire someone, you pay payroll taxes on their earnings. But if you buy a robot, you can usually write it off right away as a business expense. The tax system nudges you toward replacing people with machines.

Taxing AI tokens and Robots is not going to work. We can’t even define a robot, tokens are also too abstract and there is endless ways of gaming it, and let’s not forget cross border operations. Tax profits, it was always the most equitable option.

Tax production as a whole, because profits get hidden in whatever is this week's tax haven. Taxing production has the added benefit of being able to drop every other tax tangentially related to revenue.

Re: Bill Gates: The turbulent AI era is here

#149

Post by swed420 »

lanfeust6 wrote: post #109
swed420 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Election denialism is unbecoming of anyone with a brain Convincing argument you have there, but the choices we're provided between shit sandwich A and shit sandwich B are the problem, not which one wins.

This is akin to arguing "nothing ever changes or improves in Liberal democracies", when policy history doesn't reflect that. Large parties represent large coalitions, so there are more compromises and things happen slower, but they still happen. Not always for the better, as we're seeing when populists are elected.

> This is akin to arguing "nothing ever changes or improves in Liberal democracies", when policy history doesn't reflect that.

Ever-growing wealth disparities, eroded rights, mass enshitification in a race to the bottom, and widespread hatred of ones neighbor over fake outrage culture war propaganda disseminated from corporate media are not a trends of improvement. They are trends of decline, unless you're of the class who has their doomsday bunker on standby.

Re: Bill Gates: The turbulent AI era is here

#150

Post by debo_ »

asdf88990 wrote: post #104
debo_ wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think taxing profits is still insufficient, because unless the tax rate is close to 100% (lol) the "k-shaped" economy is still reinforced, but just slowed slightly. In combination with a wealth/holdings tax, maybe. Personally I think the idea of taxing robots/tokens directly is too narrow an idea.

It is because personal income tax should have never existed. Nor should have taxes on primary residence. These are the most regressive taxes possible, it is basically serfdom.

Can you explain this? I think consumption taxes are the most regressive taxes possible because they are "flat" and thus affect lower-income people harder.

Marginal income taxes are regressive now in the sense that folks with more wealth have far more resources to avoid paying them, but otherwise the reasoning seems less regressive than a consumption tax (e.g. VAT)

Post reply on HN