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

151–160 of 202 posts

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#151

Post by GeoAtreides »

the__prestige wrote: post #135

Where do I even begin? Speed is unrealistic. It compresses a decade of enterprise adoption into 18 months. Organizations don't restructure at the speed of a demo. And if it were true, companies would also stop buying AI once their customers are broke and revenue is falling. The "rational firm" logic cuts both ways. "No new jobs" is asserted, not argued. It dismisses 200 years of counter-evidence in two sentences and…

>AI makes everything cheaper, the purchasing power of remaining income rises

hahaha, hilarious, imagine thinking prices will go down instead of companies just pocketing the difference

>People don't optimize purchases like machines

correct, machine optimize purchases like machines. that was the author point

>Regulation would arrive fast.

what regulation? "Stop using AI or you will get fined?" "Extra tax on AI companies"? good luck passing those in today America. also, the author touches on the exact point as well

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#152

Post by GeoAtreides »

krackers wrote: post #49
jahsome wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one price matches for protein bars because it's a commodity item with minimal price differences (and people often have a preferred brand anyway), but they probably do for $2k laptop. This is the most "silicon valley" statement I've ever read on this website. Perhaps I'm just being obtuse and misunderstanding, but the assertion people don't price match groceries is so, so wrong. Many, many, many people have no ch…

>the assertion people don't price match groceries is so, so wrong. Many, many, many people have no choice I guess I didn't quite say my point clearly, the time and physical cost to get to a grocery store puts up barriers against perfect price matching. You likely are not going to go out of your way to visit a grocery store for just a single item. And I don't think online delivery will change anything here because shi…

>, the time and physical cost to get to a grocery store puts up barriers against perfect price matching. You likely are not going to go out of your way to visit a grocery store for just a single item.

you have never been poor (enough) and it shows

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#153

Post by NobleLie »

vmg12 wrote: post #35
krackers wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you going to choose to buy your protein bar online from mysteryBargainBar[.]com for a $1 savings, or just pick it up as part of your local grocery trip? > I still remember when people were scared to buy things on the internet People still /are/ scared to buy things from Amazon for things that go on or in their body.

> mysteryBargainBar[.]com for a $1 savings The AI could also research which stores are reputable. > People still /are/ scared to buy things from Amazon for things that go on or in their body. Sure, there are also people scared of flying in airplanes, those must be a dud too going by your logic.

Grok, show me the place where the least people died eating product X.

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#154

Post by munksbeer »

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?

I'm not an economist but you're just echoing a trivially shallow meme.

Research:

  - Where does most money come from?
  - What are these gazillion AI agents creating if no-one has any money to buy anything? 
  - What is this "wealth" of this small group of ultra-rich individuals? Who is buying the shares of their companies to make them wealthy? Who is buying their products?
The economy must be self balancing. There is no other way. If demand collapses, no-one gets rich.

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#155

Post by munksbeer »

the__prestige wrote: post #135

Where do I even begin? Speed is unrealistic. It compresses a decade of enterprise adoption into 18 months. Organizations don't restructure at the speed of a demo. And if it were true, companies would also stop buying AI once their customers are broke and revenue is falling. The "rational firm" logic cuts both ways. "No new jobs" is asserted, not argued. It dismisses 200 years of counter-evidence in two sentences and…

I don't pretend to know how all of this will unfold but at the very least your argument has more depth and nuance than the average response to all this which is - only a few people will control everything and the rest will scrape around in the dust, if we're allowed to live.

Just no depth of thought to those sort of replies at all, on a site where curiosity and deeper thinking is encouraged.

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#156

Post by imtringued »

rfv6723 wrote: post #125

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…

>it ignores the historical reality that human desires are infinite

This is factually false. Human desires are only infinite for things that have positive utility and cost nothing and by nothing I mean nothing. The moment you have to spend even a single second thinking whether you want to buy or not, demand collapses from infinite to finite by definition.

This means people will accumulate infinite quantities of money, stocks, etc, but never infinite quantities of anything concrete that exists in the real world.

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#157

Post by throwaway2037 »

Havoc wrote: post #126
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

I disagree. In my view, business types (think C-suite, sales, and product dev for any industry) have infinite amount of software they want built. My Jevon's paradox will allow them to build more software. I actually see an increase in the number of programmers once Claws goes mainstream.

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#158

Post by Havoc »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #157
Havoc wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jevons paradox applies more to token demand than demand for meatbags

I disagree. In my view, business types (think C-suite, sales, and product dev for any industry) have infinite amount of software they want built. My Jevon's paradox will allow them to build more software. I actually see an increase in the number of programmers once Claws goes mainstream.

> business types (think C-suite, sales, and product dev for any industry) have infinite amount of software they want built.

It may seem that way if you’re tasked with fulfilling such demands and are in the selling software business but it’s quite the opposite on end customers side ie buyer.

Software adds cost and complexity so absolutes minimum that still gets the job done is the aim. Software that enables some efficiency gain is good and worth the complexity of another system. But adding a second piece of something on same doesn’t have same favourable tradeoff. Nobody needs or wants two accounting systems. Or two ERPs. Or two slack clones.

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#159

Post by Tadpole9181 »

threethirtytwo wrote: post #147
Tadpole9181 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They said "no one". Not even "most", let alone "half" or "some". Those are their words. To live in a country where tens of millions of people have food insecurity, 50 million rely on food stamps, and the median income is 40,000 while the median rent is 1,700 (20,000/year) and claim no one has to watch their grocery bill to their own inconvenience would be utterly disconnected from the reality of the survival of half…

>To live in a country where tens of millions of people have food insecurity, 50 million rely on food stamps, and the median income is 40,000 while the median rent is 1,700 (20,000/year) and claim no one has to watch their grocery bill to their own inconvenience would be utterly disconnected from the reality of the survival of half of their countrymen. Stop turning this into some kind of holier than thou angle. He kno…

> it's a targetted attack

What are we, children? You're acting like I insulted their mother and called the police.

> would you say what you said to someones face?

Yes, of course I would. I have. "That's nuts" or "it's nuts" is such a basic, inoffensive phrase and has no bite.

I've also said "incredulous" and "absurd" and "crazy" and a myriad of other adjectives. I've also had my arguments called those things - correctly. Maybe we keep different types of company, but when I'm having an argument/debate with friends or family, they're not so delicate we can't call each other out when one of us is being ridiculous.

> Would you go on some holier than thou lecture on the amount of people relying on food stamps?

Damn, objective facts and counterpoints related directly to the conversation are holier than thou now? I guess I forgot that when people say things diametrically opposed to basic reality, we're all supposed to just ignore it and let it go.

After all, we wouldn't want to be seen as a loon by a random guy on the internet, offended on someone else's behalf over a one syllable word that wasn't even directed at any individual, but an idea.

I mean, heck, that actually sounds kinda nuts.

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#160

Post by Tadpole9181 »

threethirtytwo wrote: post #141
jahsome wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say you are nuts, I said your statement is. The distinction should be "obvious" no? Here's a hint though: normal is a myth.

[flagged]

> you're a liar... a dick

Oh, I have a perfect response for this!

"Let me put it this way, would you say what you said to someones face? Your best friend? You mother? or father and call them a liar and a dick because they said something that was off? Would you go on some holier than thou lecture on intent and deception? You would?"

They clearly weren't calling you nuts, for what it's worth. Saying something you said is nuts is not the literal saying "the person who said this is clinically insane and should be locked up".

Legitimate question, I don't mean to be insensitive, but are you not a native English speaker or something?

Post reply on HN