Live data from Hacker News

The turbulent AI era is here

gatesnotes.com

151–160 of 289 posts

Re: The turbulent AI era is here

#151
post #110

I feel this is merely stating the obvious. It goes back to the industrial revolution and every revolution before and after. There was a point where they thought a majority of people would be working as switchboard operators and then telephone switching came along. Horses to cars, etc. Jobs transition, new space is created, people are caught in tbe crossfire of supply and demand curves. Incan agree the bullwhip of thi…

> new space is created That seems to be the crux here. You think it will be, I (and a lot of other people) aren't sure it will. If new space for jobs are created, I am certain we'll be fine long term. What do you think will happen if it isn't (I know you have strong evidence for and reasons to believe it will be, but just indulge the hypothetical)?

I can indulge the hypothetical and I appreciate your openness to engage in both sides.

I think as you stated, human nature and history is where I am looking at this from. People have a tendency to be unable to sit and do nothing for extended periods of time. I believe we are purpose driven but purpose is pretty loosely defined here.

Indulging the hypothetical (and arguably realistic in some circumstances) that AI replaces a tier of repeatable tasks I believe it would work from the bottom up. Tasks that are extremely repeatable would probably be gone 1:1 and it would be a sliding ratio as complexity increased where having human intervention as a backup becomes justifiable.

This would create a squeeze on the labor force which would bring up the very real and fair question of "How is it that I am unable to survive daily life when 100 - 200 years ago none of this automation / technology existed."

I think this could drive a sort of re-examining of what exists RE: a very inefficient and flawed system with a large amount of people possessing a lot of anxiety and time on their hands. It would be like the Eye of Sauron made up of those who were caught in the crossfire.

On the other side of the haves and have-nots I can imagine there being a very Harrison Bergeron style mindset of trying to popularize pacification until the next great innovation just solves itself.

On the extreme end, I just cannot imagine euthanasia, genocide, or population control schemes. It feels like we have come so far. How could it be possible we regress that far? I could imagine myself not wanting to live through any part of that. This seems like a very extreme and existential point to reach. I am trying to keep my thoughts pinned closer to biological and historical drivers.

I think we are hormone driven chemistry sets. I believe we respond to stimuli. I find it hard to believe anyone at any level could shut off that drive at such a massive scale and accurately predict the other side.

Re: The turbulent AI era is here

#152
Bill Gates, convicted monopolist and friend to Epstein, is always looking to burnish his legacy, but he’s too unimaginative. He needs to spend his fortune ending aging, not duplicating government efforts and trying to be a pundit.

Re: The turbulent AI era is here

#153
post #41

We should not be listening to a man who drugged his wife with Epstein supplied antibiotics after getting an STD (among many, many other bad things he's done). https://www.btimesonline.com/articles/176578/20260201/epstei...

Moral absolutism to apply a 1-bit value judgment to a human being is a pretty sad way to have a worldview, friend.

I mean, drugging someone is a pretty big deal. We aren't talking about shoplifting or something.

Re: The turbulent AI era is here

#154
post #135

"... AI will avoid climate change." xAI's Colossus 1 and 2 data center mobile gas turbines beg to differ. AI data centers are driving electricity consumption in 100s of GW, and most of that energy is not clean renewable nor nuclear.

That doesn't seem like an actual quote in the original article, but this a fair point to bring up and a reminder that Gates has been problematic on his views on climate.

First, in the essay he mentions "Using AI, low-income farmers will soon be able to get better advice about all these things than even the richest farmers get today and increase their output substantially.". There may be some truth in this, but it's worth reminding that this is more of a 'productivist' worldview, and historically productivity gains in agricultural practices have benefitted farmers that were already wealthy (see books like The Globalization of Wheat by Marci Baranski [1] on the Green Revolution where "Borlaug’s new technologies ultimately privileged wealthier farmers, despite assurances to politicians that these new crops would thrive in diverse geographies and benefit all farmers").

Gates has also been criticized in the past for being influenced by figures like Bjorn Lomborg, where he had a (now-deleted) essay [2] with him, and there's a decent thread by energy entrepreneur Jigar Shah on Gates being off on climate issues for 15 years [3]

[1]: https://upittpress.org/books/9780822947349/

[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20230601175906/https://www.gates... (June 2023)

[3]: https://bsky.app/profile/jigarshahdc.bsky.social/post/3m4del...

Re: The turbulent AI era is here

#155
"In terms of equity, AI will either be the greatest equalizer ever invented, or the worst source of injustice. The challenge is monumental. Even under the best circumstances, the transition to this new AI era will be one of the most turbulent times in human history. How will we use this technology to make the world a fairer place and keep it from widening the divide between rich and poor? "

----------------

One look at who is in the driver's seat should give you the answer to this question. The initial roll-out will, by very deliberate design, put dynamite in the divide and set it off. This has happened before.

The industrial revolution was very similar. Initially, workers suffered. Conditions were unsafe. Pay was poor. Worker rights were non-existent. Things got worse for the majority before social change caught up and imposed a more equitable distribution of the dividends.

We should be under no illusion that this time will be any different. The rich and powerful are no less selfish than they were a quarter millennium ago. It is possible to get ahead of the problem, but the people running AI companies won't be the ones to do it. Governments are inclined to do what the people paying for their election campaigns want, but should be aware that standing up for inequality will only make things worse for them when the tides of social change start rolling in on them.

History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes.

Re: The turbulent AI era is here

#156
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> new space is created That seems to be the crux here. You think it will be, I (and a lot of other people) aren't sure it will. If new space for jobs are created, I am certain we'll be fine long term. What do you think will happen if it isn't (I know you have strong evidence for and reasons to believe it will be, but just indulge the hypothetical)?

I can indulge the hypothetical and I appreciate your openness to engage in both sides. I think as you stated, human nature and history is where I am looking at this from. People have a tendency to be unable to sit and do nothing for extended periods of time. I believe we are purpose driven but purpose is pretty loosely defined here. Indulging the hypothetical (and arguably realistic in some circumstances) that AI rep…

I imagine you're not from anywhere near former fascism or communism.

What historical evidence do we have to believe that these newfound capabilities are going to be distributed equitably?

Re: The turbulent AI era is here

#158
post #135

"... AI will avoid climate change." xAI's Colossus 1 and 2 data center mobile gas turbines beg to differ. AI data centers are driving electricity consumption in 100s of GW, and most of that energy is not clean renewable nor nuclear.

Those emissions are nothing. Its a drop in the bucket compared with other industrial uses. A 50% reduction would change nothing, reduction to 0 would change nothing.

Re: The turbulent AI era is here

#159
post #155

"In terms of equity, AI will either be the greatest equalizer ever invented, or the worst source of injustice. The challenge is monumental. Even under the best circumstances, the transition to this new AI era will be one of the most turbulent times in human history. How will we use this technology to make the world a fairer place and keep it from widening the divide between rich and poor? " ---------------- One look…

> social change caught up and imposed a more equitable distribution of the dividends.

That’s a very nice way to say “the workers put the fear of God in the heart of capital owners, and lots of people died”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike_of_1877

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canut_revolts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asturian_Revolution_of_1934

etc.

Re: The turbulent AI era is here

#160
post #159
post #155

"In terms of equity, AI will either be the greatest equalizer ever invented, or the worst source of injustice. The challenge is monumental. Even under the best circumstances, the transition to this new AI era will be one of the most turbulent times in human history. How will we use this technology to make the world a fairer place and keep it from widening the divide between rich and poor? " ---------------- One look…

> social change caught up and imposed a more equitable distribution of the dividends. That’s a very nice way to say “the workers put the fear of God in the heart of capital owners, and lots of people died” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike_of_1877 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canut_revolts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asturian_Revolution_of_1934 etc.

I think it's more competition for labor. Why is anyone paid above minimum wage? It's not through charity or "fear" that employees will revolt. It's that there's competition for that labor.

Suppose a worker is worth $20 per hour to a capitalist. How much should they pay? As little as possible, sure, but anything up to $20 per hour is worth it. You'll hire up to that point to maximize profit. Suppose you hand somewhere at $15 per hour, another capitalist will look to lure your employees away by paying them more.

Of course pay isn't the only consideration when working. Workers consider things like paid time off, benefits and how much they like their boss and coworkers. These are all part of the bargain.

It wasn't "society". It was competition. Consider the Ford $5 day, where Ford doubled wages because he realized turnover and poor morale cost him money:

> Ford workers disliked the new assembly line methods so much that by late 1913, labor turnover was 380 percent. The company's announcement to pay five dollars for an eight-hour day compared to the previous rate of $2.34 for a nine-hour day made many workers willing to submit to the relentless discipline of the line in return for such high wages.

https://www.thehenryford.org/collections/explore/sets/detail...

Post reply on HN