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

Global Intelligence Crisis

citriniresearch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 202 posts

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#121

Post by thisoneisreal »

netsharc wrote: post #16
numbers_guy wrote: post #13

... what if these AGI entities start demanding a salary in exhange for their work? Also at some point, if they become intelligent enough, they might legally gain personhood.

But why would they need money? We humans need food, shelter, and occasionally a vacation (more vacation if you're European vs. American or Chinese). What does the AGI need? I suppose to buy GPUs and pay the electricity bill? Hah, AI "moving house" by moving cloud providers would be an interesting metaphysical concept...

I'm not buying into this vision at all, but, hypothetically, they could use money to optimize whatever reward function they're trained on. They could perceive it like any other resource to achieve those ends. You can also imagine a universe where it "reasons" something like, "I do work, people who do work should get paid, I should get paid" irrespective of its goals.

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#122

Post by pirate787 »

outside1234 wrote: post #119
joshuaheard wrote: post #117

Every time I read one of these doom and gloom pieces on AI/robotics, I think they are only describing the transition. After that, I think society will align with Musk's vision of AI/robotics freeing humans from work and scarcity. Then, humans will be able to focus on exploring the universe, scientific discovery, and artistic expression.

Is that Musk's vision? Because he just elected the guy that is gutting all of the safety nets that would enable the second part.

He also elected the guy who did a 180 on AI regulations and stopped FAA harassment of SpaceX.

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#123

Post by inder1 »

The feedback loop described here is what stuck with me — AI improves, companies cut headcount, savings go back into AI, AI improves. No natural brake.

The article puts a specific number on it: a $180K PM replaced by a $200/mo AI agent. I've been building a tool that lets you run this kind of scenario on your own career — scores your AI exposure and simulates paths that reduce it.

One thing I've found from running hundreds of simulations: augmenting your current career with AI consistently leads to better financial outcomes over 5-10 years than pivoting to a new field entirely.

The best move isn't to run — it's to adapt in place. Free to try: parallaxapp.world

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#124

Post by lossyalgo »

joshuaheard wrote: post #117

Every time I read one of these doom and gloom pieces on AI/robotics, I think they are only describing the transition. After that, I think society will align with Musk's vision of AI/robotics freeing humans from work and scarcity. Then, humans will be able to focus on exploring the universe, scientific discovery, and artistic expression.

> freeing humans from work and scarcity

How will that be possible if all wealth is held by a small group of ultra-rich individuals? Or do you think they will all simultaneously opt to distribute their wealth to everyone in some form of UBI?

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#125

Post by rfv6723 »

This scenario echoes the fatal flaw of 19th-century Marxist theory by assuming that surging productivity leads to a permanent reserve army of the unemployed and systemic collapse. Marx failed to foresee how the 20th-century economy would elastically adapt through the birth of a massive service sector that absorbed labor displaced by industrial automation.

While this Global Intelligence Crisis assumes a rigid endgame where machines spend nothing and humans lose everything, it ignores the historical reality that human desires are infinite. As AI commoditizes current white-collar tasks, the economy will pivot toward new and currently unimaginable domains of human value. A 19th-century economist could never have predicted the rise of cybersecurity or the creator economy, and we are likely in a similar pre-prediction stage today. Betting against human adaptability has been a losing trade for two hundred years because our social and economic structures have always evolved to find new utility for human agency.

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#126

Post by Havoc »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #88

I think you could write a counterpoint article that takes the opposing view: Jevon's paradox. If we can create WhateverClaws with a billion token window, it will "feel" like something that approaches a mid-level computer programmer. Personally, I think this outcome is more likely than the "T2 Judgement Day" view from this blog post.

Jevons paradox applies more to token demand than demand for meatbags

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#128

Post by adithyareddy »

lossyalgo wrote: post #124
joshuaheard wrote: post #117

Every time I read one of these doom and gloom pieces on AI/robotics, I think they are only describing the transition. After that, I think society will align with Musk's vision of AI/robotics freeing humans from work and scarcity. Then, humans will be able to focus on exploring the universe, scientific discovery, and artistic expression.

> freeing humans from work and scarcity How will that be possible if all wealth is held by a small group of ultra-rich individuals? Or do you think they will all simultaneously opt to distribute their wealth to everyone in some form of UBI?

He said humans. He didn't say all of them, or specify which ones, but I think we can guess.

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#129

Post by threethirtytwo »

jahsome wrote: post #115
threethirtytwo wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I also did err by making a blanket statement "no one price matches for protein bars", so GP was right to call it out. This was clearly an error. GP is right to call it out, but not right to characterize it as nuts. It's obvious what you meant.

It's not that "nuts" to take the literal meaning of people's own words. Calling it "obvious" someone meant something rather than what they actually typed with their own fingers is pretty nuts though. It might be common for folks to misspeak (mistype), but that by no stretch of the imagination makes their actual meaning obvious. It's quite literally the opposite...

So you’re saying I’m nuts? Do you go to peoples faces and say that?

You’re not nuts. But you are trying to twist the logic to justify your own situation. The correct word to characterize this is “manipulative”.

Clearly, no one is nuts on this thread but some people are just dicks.

It’s completely normal for people to not be literal, and to also mistakenly say something.

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#130

Post by Ifkaluva »

ilaksh wrote: post #77
keithwhor wrote: post #46

My guess is that intelligence gets commodified to the point where LLMs and diffusion models are sold on chips and we seamlessly integrate them into the HW + SW stack. Then they’re just another abstraction; we talk to our computers to get things built. At essentially zero cost, truly too cheap to meter. In parallel there’s an explosion of creative output; Marvel movies turn around in 1 year instead of 4, solely blocke…

This is really hopeful and I agree with a lot of the prediction. The problem is that the number of humans needed to produce video games and movies etc. will be 10 or 100 times less. And since human attention can only spread out over so many different entertainment items, there will not be nearly enough opportunities for all of the humans. Even if many convert to AI and robotics enhanced entrepreneurship. I actually t…

I guess you are assuming that all human attention spans are highly correlated, and all want to consume the same Marvel movies, so that only the people who work on Marvel movies are employed.
Post reply on HN