[flagged]
Replacement.ai
171–180 of 725 posts
Re: Replacement.ai
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s one scenario, but there are others. There are lots of open-weight models. Why wouldn’t ownership of AI end up being widely distributed? Mabybe it's more like solar panels than nuclear power plants?
If we're in fantasy land about AI, why do we keep thinking anyone will actually _own_ AI? Human hubris alone cannot contain a super intelligent AI.
What makes you assume the AI companies actually want to create a super intelligence they can’t control. Altman has stated as much. Musk definitely wants to remain in power.
Re: Replacement.ai
#173I kind of get it, but at the same time...isn't "we made a machine to do something that people used to do" basically the entire history of of technology? It feels like somehow we should have figured out how to cope with the "but what about the old jobs" problem
We invent machines to free ourselves from labour, yet we’ve built an economy where freedom from labour means losing your livelihood.
No other such economy has ever existed. "He who does not work, neither shall he eat"
Re: Replacement.ai
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you end up with is a dozen people owning all the wealth and everyone else owning nothing, resulting in the robots not doing anything because no one is buying anything, resulting in a complete collapse of the economic system the world uses to operate. Mass riots, hunger wars, political upheaval, world war 3. Nuke the opposition before they nuke you.
That’s one scenario, but there are others. There are lots of open-weight models. Why wouldn’t ownership of AI end up being widely distributed? Mabybe it's more like solar panels than nuclear power plants?
In terms of quality of life, much/most of the value of intelligence is in how it lets you affect the physical world. For most knowledge workers, that takes the form of using intelligence to increase how productively some physical asset can be exploited. The owner of the asset gives some of the money/surplus earned to the knowledge worker, and they can use the money to affect change in the physical world by paying for food, labor, shelter, etc.
If the physical asset owner can replace me with a brain in a jar, it doesn't really help me that I have my own brain in a jar. It can't think food/shelter into existence for me.
If AI gets to the point where human knowledge is obsolete, and if politics don't shift to protect the former workers, I don't think widespread availability of AI is saving those who don't have control over substantial physical assets.
Re: Replacement.ai
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
If ML is limited to replacing some tasks that humans do, yes it will be much like any past technological innovation. If we build AGI, we don't have a past comparison for that. Technologies so far have always replaced a subset of what humans currently do, not everything at once.
I love SF, but somehow I don't find it very good foundation for predicting the future. Especially when people focus of one, very narrow theme of SF and claim with certainty that's what's gonna happen.
Heh,I read SF as San Francisco; point remains true. Except the Valley wants to force a future, not describe it
Re: Replacement.ai
#176Personal belief, but robots coming for your jobs is not a valid argument against robots. If robots can do a job better and/or faster, they should be the ones doing the jobs. Specialization is how we got to the future. So the problem isn't robots, it's the structure of how we humans rely on jobs for income. I don't necessarily feel like it's the AI company's problem to fix either. This is what government is for, and n…
Might want to read some Karl Polanyi.
Re: Replacement.ai
#177Was this written on 2025-20-29?
Re: Replacement.ai
#178You don't need money. What you need is wealth. I am going to leave it to PG to explain the difference [1]: Wealth is not money. Wealth is stuff we want: food, clothes, houses, cars, gadgets, travel to interesting places, and so on. You can have wealth without having money. If you had a magic machine that could on command make you a car or cook you dinner or do your laundry, or do anything else you wanted, you wouldn'…
Great, sounds awesome. I'm actually 100% in favor of this vision.
So when are we going to start pivoting towards a more socialist economic system? Where are the AI leaders backing politicians with this vision?
Because that's absolutely required for what you're talking about here...
Re: Replacement.ai
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
My main concerns: 1. When such wealth is possible through autonomous means, how can the earth survive such unprecedented demands on its natural resources? 2. Should I believe that someone with more wealth (and as such, more power) than I have would not use that power to overwhelm me? Isn't my demand on resources only going to get in their way? Why would they allow me to draw on resources as well? 3. It seems like the…
> someone with more wealth Well in trekonomics [1], citizens are equal in terms of material wealth because scarcity has been eliminated. Wealth, in the conventional sense, does not exist; instead, the "wealth" that matters is human capital—skills, abilities, reputation, and status. The reward in this society comes not from accumulation of material goods but from intangible rewards such as honor, glory, intellectual a…
That sounds great. Presently we still experience scarcity due to the limitations of earth's resources, though.
Re: Replacement.ai
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we're in fantasy land about AI, why do we keep thinking anyone will actually _own_ AI? Human hubris alone cannot contain a super intelligent AI.
What makes you assume the AI companies actually want to create a super intelligence they can’t control. Altman has stated as much. Musk definitely wants to remain in power.
Life, uh, finds a way