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

161–170 of 202 posts

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#161

Post by ndriscoll »

fweimer wrote: post #63
vmg12 wrote: post #19

In other words, switching costs go to 0, margins collapse. Middle men and people with products that aren't differentiated get hit hardest. A human can't search 10 apps for the best rates / lowest fees but an agent can. Thinking ahead 100 years from now, companies like doordash and uber eats don't exist and are instead protocols agents use to bid for items their user asks for and price discovery happens in real time.

> A human can't search 10 apps for the best rates / lowest fees but an agent can. Why would those apps permit access by agents? It's always been the case that “agents” could watch content with ads, so that the users can watch the same content later, but without ads. The technology never went mainstream, though. I expect agents posing as humans would have a similar whiff of illegality, preventing wide adoption. Local…

What whiff of illegality? Personal recording and ad skipping DVRs are completely legal products (at least in the US). Courts have ruled on this.

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#163

Post by netsharc »

thisoneisreal wrote: post #121
netsharc wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hah, looking forward to when AI discovers it can entice humans with money to do things. Maybe the next step of AI will be a machine "employing" humans to check for any faults in its logic.

Members of the line-must-go-up tribe (I'm not excluding myself) sacrifice everything in order to maximize the number called "Net Worth", seemingly forgetting what's important in life (extreme examples: utter cunts like Zuck or Musk). It's almost like human beings turning "programmatic".

As an aside, the plot of The Matrix would've made more sense if humans didn't become "energy storage" (what babble!) but that the AI discovered human brains were the best CPUs, and that's why they were "farmed"...

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#164

Post by jonwinstanley »

GeoAtreides wrote: post #151
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 companie…

Presumably price would reduce due to the ease of which people can spin up competitors?

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#165

Post by jonwinstanley »

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.

Presumably the agents will band together on Moltbook and buld their own TrustPilot competitor? :-)

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#166

Post by jonwinstanley »

kryptiskt wrote: post #69
vmg12 wrote: post #19

In other words, switching costs go to 0, margins collapse. Middle men and people with products that aren't differentiated get hit hardest. A human can't search 10 apps for the best rates / lowest fees but an agent can. Thinking ahead 100 years from now, companies like doordash and uber eats don't exist and are instead protocols agents use to bid for items their user asks for and price discovery happens in real time.

I don't see what the role of AI is in this. You don't need an AI to aggregate data from a bunch of sources. You'd be better off having the AI write a scraper for you than burning GPU time on an agent doing the same thing every time.

If you're paying a monthly fee for your agent, might as well use it to save you another few mins

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#167

Post by lossyalgo »

jonwinstanley wrote: post #165
vmg12 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Presumably the agents will band together on Moltbook and buld their own TrustPilot competitor? :-)

Too bad Moltbook was written by humans, for humans: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.07432

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#168

Post by lossyalgo »

lijok wrote: post #78
krackers wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> 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. I think you’re a bit out of touch with the common man. People do this constantly, some to a comical degree, going so far as to make two loops on their shopping trip to return…

You may be assuming a car-centric approach to shopping, where the distance between stores is large. In cities where shops are mixed into residential areas, people often walk because stores are usually within about 10 minutes, and there are multiple options with different selections and prices.

That makes it easy to rotate: stop by one store one day, another the next, often on the way home from work since you’re taking the subway or bus anyway. For example, I buy most of my groceries at one store, and then pick up certain items in bulk at other stores every 1-3 months when they carry the brand I want at a good price (unless my usual store has a sale). Most people I know do something similar, especially as groceries have gotten more expensive, particularly since COVID.

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#169

Post by threethirtytwo »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #160
threethirtytwo wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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…

>Calling it "obvious" someone meant something rather than what they actually typed with their own fingers is pretty nuts though.

The above is what he said in response to me defending someone and saying that they are not "nuts". I am the person who called it "obvious".

The colloquial meaning changes in context. Under normal conditions you're correct, it's a benign statement, that's slightly derogatory. But I changed the context. I emphasized the minor derogatoriness of making that statement and I said the person you said that to is not in actuality "nuts". Then he proceeded to call me (aka my statements) "nuts".

Look I don't know if you're trolling, but you're utterly wrong. It was a targeted statement. It's clear what was said, there is just something wrong with how YOU are interpreting it. I am a native english speaker.

Re: Global Intelligence Crisis

#170

Post by franktankbank »

munksbeer wrote: post #154
lossyalgo wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ot…

This is the dumb meme. Those who own the automation don't have any non-moral non-ethical reason to feed and house the masses. Money is a proxy for power.
Post reply on HN