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

The Software Revolution

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 397 posts

Re: The Software Revolution

#221

Post by hiou »

dikaiosune wrote: post #191
hiou wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting point. But it brings up that scarier part of AI. I believe AI will become better at humans at mental processes far before it will be better than human physical labor. For exactly the points you mention. This is already becoming true for many logistical industries. What happens if AI replaces all the high level decision making positions and humans are relegated to handling the low level "last mile" tasks?…

I would generally agree, even for a fairly limited definition of AI. An aside: IIRC, what you're laying out is the "history" of the Dune universe (and I'm sure many others). I think that computation tends to replace relatively unskilled labor, relative to the skill of whatever created the AI/algorithm/whatever. So right now we're in a situation where software people are automating jobs which are generally less skille…

> Regarding order pickers, I think that's just a question of economics.

I think it will in effect be those tasks that are fully digital. Working in the physical world is a much more expensive and libelous undertaking. So I believe the tipping point for most jobs to be replaced by AI will be when little or no physical action is required on the part of the actor. When a task is 100% digital inputs and outputs AI will be able to use that activity as a training set and replace most of those jobs fairly quickly. That is once AI matures to a point where it can be set up quickly and easily.

Re: The Software Revolution

#222

Post by michaelchisari »

powertower wrote: post #219

> We can—and we will—redistribute wealth ... Please, someone explain to me how wealth can be re-distributed? I know how money can be re-distributed (and in-turn made less effective - i.e., more is required to purchase less), but how exactly do you either a) create "wealth" (via government policy or law) or b) take someone else's wealth , split it up into smaller peaces, and make the end-recipients more "wealthy"? The…

Currency represents wealth. You redistribute currency.

Re: The Software Revolution

#223

Post by svachalek »

powertower wrote: post #219

> We can—and we will—redistribute wealth ... Please, someone explain to me how wealth can be re-distributed? I know how money can be re-distributed (and in-turn made less effective - i.e., more is required to purchase less), but how exactly do you either a) create "wealth" (via government policy or law) or b) take someone else's wealth , split it up into smaller peaces, and make the end-recipients more "wealthy"? The…

You seem to be implying that only individuals may have wealth.

Re: The Software Revolution

#224

Post by throwawaymsft »

peapicker wrote: post #58

"Trying to hold on to worthless jobs is a terrible but popular idea." I'm not sure I agree with this proposition. When I was in India, I noticed a large amount of roadwork was being done by men with shovels and other fairly low tech. I asked about it, and was told, to paraphrase, "Sure, we could do it better and faster with machines, but it is better for society to provide employment to those who would otherwise be u…

Who's making you feel worthless? Write, draw, create, explore, build, do any of the things you'd normally do on the weekend.

Re: The Software Revolution

#225

Post by markbnj »

msandford wrote: post #131
markbnj wrote: post #24

I don't necessarily buy the "AI can end humanity" thing. As a cliche that's become very easy to repeat, but I've yet to see a postulated mechanism by which it could actually happen that isn't pure SF. The ending of human life would not be so easy for computers to accomplish. But on the subject of concentration of power and the wide-scale elimination of low- and middle-range jobs I think he is dead on. I fear that the…

Someone makes an AI whose goal is to maximize shareholder revenue bar none. No conscience, no idea that people might be valuable somehow in some abstract sense, nothing. Shareholder revenue (as measured with a stock price!) and nothing else. It doesn't take the AI long to figure out that trading in various markets is the most profitable endeavor and the one best suited to its skills. And it starts to maximize away an…

An interesting basis for a story, but I have to point out that by your own description you've failed to eradicate humans. Also, as is usually the case with these scenarios, the most problematic and unlikely components of the event chain are dwelt upon the least, i.e., "During this process it somehow ends up on its own and is no longer owned (or controlled) by anyone anymore."

Re: The Software Revolution

#226

Post by samselikoff »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #119
samselikoff wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the alternative is to sit around and do nothing. Economies are much more dynamic than that, and while it's true some may suffer in the short-run, it's wouldn't be like that forever. At one point the US was primarily an agrarian society, and more than 90% of labor worked on a farm. Imagine telling someone from that society that some day, tech would allow less than 2% of the workforce to produce many time…

>> "I'm sure they would express a similar concern, though we know they'd be wrong." I'm not so sure. The work they did contributed to society. There are plenty of people now being paid high amounts of money for made up, bullshit jobs that provide no benefit to society and create little to nothing.

Absolutely, I wasn't saying that farmers in pre-industrial America didn't contribute anything. My point was that once tech displaced the majority of their jobs, they didn't all just sit around and not do anything.

Technology freed up their labor from producing food and allowed them to produce things like automobiles, textiles and eventually computers. The idea that new tech will leave large parts of the population with absolutely nothing to do has been suggested before, but we still have no example of it actually happening, and in fact, far more examples of the reverse.

Re: The Software Revolution

#227

Post by yellowapple »

I feel like the article missed a big point about the lessons we (should have) learned from atomic energy: that the negative aspects of nuclear power (mass destruction, etc.) have significantly outweighed the positive aspects (relatively clean and abundant energy, with a safety track record that's among the best of any energy source despite a few high-profile incidents), likely because the negative aspects were humanity's first impressions of such an energy source.

If this "software revolution" is to be a positive direction for humanity, we as a species must learn from this. The sooner a positive and constructive use of a technology can become household knowledge, the better.

IBM's recent dabbling in machine learning and AI with Blue Gene and whatnot is a good foot in the right direction for that particular potential-weapon-of-mass-destruction, and hopefully other companies and entrepreneurs can spearhead further developments there in order to emphasize the use of synthetic intelligences for benign uses - self-driving cars, self-cleaning homes, the works.

Meanwhile, the idea of being able to genetically modify crops in ways not previously possible through selective breeding alone is very promising, though it certainly needs to overcome the bad PR tacked onto it thanks to the likes of Monsanto and its ilk. The improvements to crop yields made possible with genetic engineering will at least postpone humanity's eventual reaching Earth's capacity, giving us more time to build up our orbital infrastructure and prepare for humanity's eventually-essential need to expand beyond the confines of just one quasi-spherical rock flailing about in space.

Re: The Software Revolution

#228

Post by lukeschlather »

powertower wrote: post #219

> We can—and we will—redistribute wealth ... Please, someone explain to me how wealth can be re-distributed? I know how money can be re-distributed (and in-turn made less effective - i.e., more is required to purchase less), but how exactly do you either a) create "wealth" (via government policy or law) or b) take someone else's wealth , split it up into smaller peaces, and make the end-recipients more "wealthy"? The…

Mass is probably a poor analogy, but let's take it a bit further. Let's say you have a sun about to collapse into a black hole under its own weight, and some lifeless rocks elsewhere. You could, perhaps, skim off some of the sun to stop it from collapsing, and use the mass to create a thousand new suns, and breathe life into those lifeless rocks far from the main sun's light.

To be more literal, when someone has no wealth, they have no capability to create wealth. You're simply incorrect that wealth is simply an effect and not its own cause. Like matter, wealth draws wealth to itself. Unlike matter, wealth can be used to create more wealth.

Re: The Software Revolution

#229

Post by MagicWishMonkey »

Animats wrote: post #169

Altman sees the problem, but is vague about what to do about it. He's right that this is a new thing. It's not "software", per se, it's automation in general. For almost all of human history, the big problem was making enough stuff. Until about 1900 or so, 80-90% of the workforce made stuff - agriculture, manufacturing, mining, and construction. That number went below 50% some time after WWII. It's continued to drop.…

The point of the article is that no one knows what to do about it, and maybe we should start thinking ahead to plan for crises before they occur.

Re: The Software Revolution

#230

Post by JoeAltmaier »

samselikoff wrote: post #226
k-mcgrady wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "I'm sure they would express a similar concern, though we know they'd be wrong." I'm not so sure. The work they did contributed to society. There are plenty of people now being paid high amounts of money for made up, bullshit jobs that provide no benefit to society and create little to nothing.

Absolutely, I wasn't saying that farmers in pre-industrial America didn't contribute anything. My point was that once tech displaced the majority of their jobs, they didn't all just sit around and not do anything. Technology freed up their labor from producing food and allowed them to produce things like automobiles, textiles and eventually computers. The idea that new tech will leave large parts of the population wi…

Easy to say from the vantage point of history. But folks starved, died when their livelihood disappeared.

http://webs.bcp.org/sites/vcleary/ModernWorldHistoryTextbook...

Post reply on HN