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

Our First Generalist Policy

physicalintelligence.company

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 249 posts

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#171

Post by harimau777 »

Uehreka wrote: post #87
p1esk wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What will happen to those of us who are not rich but also not poor? Upper middle class with net worth between 1 and 10 million?

Net worth of over $1 million is rich. An extremely small number of people have that much money. Those people will probably be fine, though if you’re in that $1-10million zone you could be at risk of running out of money eventually if you don’t end up being one of the people owning the automation.

It seems to me that when people use the term "rich" they generally mean some combination of "wealthy enough that you don't have to work" and "wealthy enough that normal rules don't apply to you"[1].

In modern America, $1 million isn't enough to not have to work outside of small towns and certainly isn't enough that the rules don't apply to you.

[1] I don't even necessarily mean big things like hiring high power attorneys to get away with crimes. I mean things like cutting through bureaucracy, access to influential people/resources, the ability to bend regulations, etc.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#172

Post by insane_dreamer »

eMPee584 wrote: post #61
virgildotcodes wrote: post #15

I wonder at the long term vision for humanity. We have AI replacing a lot of art, writing, coding, etc. We have a bunch of robotics companies racing to replace physical human labor. Waymo and Tesla replacing drivers. What role do the majority of people realistically play in this world?

We could transition to an open access economy, with universal basic services (instead of monetary income), open source products and federated and trade-free coordination of resource flows. We could liberate ourselves from the compulsory race of competition and its manifold symptoms.. no time pressure, no low-quality products and we could become friends with the machines to avoid (ani)matrix-like escalation..

This is along the lines of what we need -- but those who control the world's resources would never allow it. I'm not optimistic.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#173

Post by kelvinjps10 »

usrusr wrote: post #153
closewith wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people go to restaurants because of the social benefits, not the labour savings. The idea of people or groups of people siloing themselves into their ultra-convenient homes and never interact with others is a dystopia and a sure sign of an already broken community.

It's a dystopia all right, but one that is already very real. WFH is a reality for many, groceries to the door hasn't become mainstream yet but the supermarket might well be on the trajectory taken by book stores two decades earlier and people who don't attend outdoor or team sports can have surprisingly few occasions to leave home unless they go out of their way to find an excuse.

Although this is your reality most of thr time, people need to go out with family/friends, from time to time. So when they disappear where people are going to go?

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#174

Post by aftbit »

usrusr wrote: post #153
closewith wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people go to restaurants because of the social benefits, not the labour savings. The idea of people or groups of people siloing themselves into their ultra-convenient homes and never interact with others is a dystopia and a sure sign of an already broken community.

It's a dystopia all right, but one that is already very real. WFH is a reality for many, groceries to the door hasn't become mainstream yet but the supermarket might well be on the trajectory taken by book stores two decades earlier and people who don't attend outdoor or team sports can have surprisingly few occasions to leave home unless they go out of their way to find an excuse.

I'm in this dystopia: WFH, delivery groceries, delivery meals when I'm feeling lazy. If I didn't have a dog, I'd probably only leave my house on the weekend.

IMO it's not so bad. I don't miss grocery shopping. I do miss walking to work up Powell St.

I do know my neighbors though, and talk to them on a pretty regular basis. I don't like sports especially, but I also do have some recreational hobbies that get me outside.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#175

Post by exe34 »

closewith wrote: post #133
TylerE wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That could just as easily be turned on it's head too - if you don't need skilled (or any) staff to shop, cook, serve, and then washup, why would you ever NOT eat at home? Especially if it can operate very quietly, one fairly slow robot could do probably all the housework, and could do it at night when it's literally out of sight and out of mind. It would feel like magic . You'd wake up every morning to a clean house…

Most people go to restaurants because of the social benefits, not the labour savings. The idea of people or groups of people siloing themselves into their ultra-convenient homes and never interact with others is a dystopia and a sure sign of an already broken community.

hey now, some of us are fed up being around other people.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#176

Post by nradov »

bitmasher9 wrote: post #89
p1esk wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What will happen to those of us who are not rich but also not poor? Upper middle class with net worth between 1 and 10 million?

Bifurcation of society with fewer and fewer people moving upward in social status. The poor have nothing. The bar of assets required to not become poor continues to raise. For example, let’s say you have 5M NW, and 75% of it is in an uninsurable residential real estate. Your house is at high risk of being destroyed, and if it does you barely have the assets required to rebuild. If this happens twice you are have noth…

That seems unrealistic. Can you give us an example of a specific residential property that is both uninsurable, and recently sold for ~$4M? Being uninsurable tends to crush value.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#177

Post by nradov »

eMPee584 wrote: post #61
virgildotcodes wrote: post #15

I wonder at the long term vision for humanity. We have AI replacing a lot of art, writing, coding, etc. We have a bunch of robotics companies racing to replace physical human labor. Waymo and Tesla replacing drivers. What role do the majority of people realistically play in this world?

We could transition to an open access economy, with universal basic services (instead of monetary income), open source products and federated and trade-free coordination of resource flows. We could liberate ourselves from the compulsory race of competition and its manifold symptoms.. no time pressure, no low-quality products and we could become friends with the machines to avoid (ani)matrix-like escalation..

And who will provide those universal basic services without getting paid? And let's not have some pseudo-religious nonsense claim that magic robots are going to do it all for us.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#178

Post by bayindirh »

usrusr wrote: post #153
closewith wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people go to restaurants because of the social benefits, not the labour savings. The idea of people or groups of people siloing themselves into their ultra-convenient homes and never interact with others is a dystopia and a sure sign of an already broken community.

It's a dystopia all right, but one that is already very real. WFH is a reality for many, groceries to the door hasn't become mainstream yet but the supermarket might well be on the trajectory taken by book stores two decades earlier and people who don't attend outdoor or team sports can have surprisingly few occasions to leave home unless they go out of their way to find an excuse.

Just because I can order everything I need for home with a couple of taps (which I can, BTW), work from home time to time, and can cook and clean by myself doesn't mean that I don't need to leave home.

Taking a long tour along the neighborhood, to see what I want to buy first hand before pulling the trigger, or seeing an old friend and getting a nice coffee at that café are all valid reasons to go out.

Getting fresh air, regularly walking, seeing a couple of different and unknown faces are regular maintenance tasks for the body and brain.

I don't think humans should hole up at their homes and work/doom scroll/eat/doom scroll/sleep/repeat just because they can. That's unhealthy for every aspect of your body and life to begin with.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#179

Post by insane_dreamer »

virgildotcodes wrote: post #15

I wonder at the long term vision for humanity. We have AI replacing a lot of art, writing, coding, etc. We have a bunch of robotics companies racing to replace physical human labor. Waymo and Tesla replacing drivers. What role do the majority of people realistically play in this world?

Important question. I think it could go two directions:

- one is that those who control the resources become wealthier, by cutting costs, and societies become even more unequal as they are now, with the lower economic classes, who are largely unemployed, scrape together a sorry existence; disgruntled masses cause social instability (and crime) which means governments have to take a firmer hand and become more authoritarian to control them. You could also end up with social revolutions.

- another is that we transition to a different type of economy altogether, based not on scarcity of resources (as is presently), but on all citizens having their needs met without having to work for them. This has been anathema throughout history, so I'm not hopeful.

In either case, these ideas that "AI will do everything and we'll be free to do the things we enjoy doing" is complete fantasy, or at least limited to the few who will have jobs/money. You can't enjoy doing anything if you're not putting food on the table.

Re: Our First Generalist Policy

#180

Post by insane_dreamer »

seventhtiger wrote: post #37
aljgz wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As optimistic as your comment is, the fact that there are lots of problems does not mean that we will tackle them. In my opinion, if we don't aim at doing anything about it, the gap between the rich and the poor will widen. Both between societies, and within one society. I'm now in Canada, but in my childhood country, most of the recent "smart" (meaning connected) devices and the recent AI models are not available. T…

Is our goal to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, or to improve the lives of the poor? Because the gap itself is actually irrelevant to poor people's lives. Rich people's improvement outpacing poor people's is not necessarily an issue. Second, a financial gap does not necessarily translate to a material gap. Someone with 1,000,000x someone else's net worth still buys the same iPhone and drinks the same coc…

> Is our goal to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, or to improve the lives of the poor? Because the gap itself is actually irrelevant to poor people's lives.

The resources to improve the lives of the poor (and not just the very poor but the struggling middle classes), have to come from somewhere. They are not infinite. So unless you're creating a bunch of wealth from nothing, then it naturally requires a more equal distribution of existing wealth.

> China which has been consistently overbuilding housing for decades now. They still have housing issues.

This is in fact a problem of unequal distribution of resources: one of the main reasons there are housing issues is because houses have been seen as an investment and gobbled up by those who can afford to do so (all my friends in Beijing own multiple apartments), so prices rise and the poor can't get them anyway.

Post reply on HN