Moore's Law for Everything

I am more and more amused by Sam's ambition of describing so-called plans for Humans, while at the same time is 1 year younger than myself, who had co-founded a failed startup loopt based on sharing location information; and joined YC because of largely Paul Graham and him being somewhat liked each other without much deep connections, and eventually become chairman of YC; then now co-founded OpenAI as the one working business side of the org.

I don't think Sam is using his time and energy wisely. But I could be wrong. Who knows.

Edit: to answer the question in the reply.

I don't know what he should be doing, exactly. But Sam probably would do more value by focusing on his work at OpenAI and figure out a way to make their work more "open" and "accessible" to puny humans who does not possess a billion dollar computing cluster.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Altman

To the author:

Stick to pealing the layer on top of what you see in your daily, AI, for now the only output being some analysis and synthesis for some data that has meaning, and is in the hands of a few, for the few. SQL for human data mongers.

The data in the public domain are one of many, botched, out of focus, wrong datasets, lack of context, a mix of right context, too limited scope to data... as is your own admitted supposition, of what you see is not what you suggest it would mean. Garbage in garbage out, a DdOS on AI is the big one to solve for now?

Add some inevitable layers, individual psychology, societal collective psychology, surplus population and their going rate of psychological settings, the list of variables "known" is endless, even more so are there hiding some very well known "unknowns".

Some serious contenders of raw AI are bluntly omitted, the size of the global population versus the index of resources of the iron-ore ball as is the planet. Relying on "money", a sublimated layer, to account for anything but a tool for social engineering, as is your outright omission to define at all AI, it's reliance on the most infinitesimal part of the few (humans), the outright wrong definition of wealth in it's relativity and dynamics, the USA as a definite part of the planet, derivatives of all and everything, i really do not know where to stop to end the rant.

As a remark to your artisan ready for consumption product page, ...it is not very data searches friendly, it has a very limited scope, it is suggestive of different proven fallacies, and has no definite declared vocabulary.

Are you to blame, of course not, as you suggest yourself AI and not "universal" human genie, as in disproportion of memory and processing capacity is to blame. As long as energy is infinite at the level of AI, the processing versus energy economy of the human brain, as is that even more energy efficient processing brain of say a raven, is largely overpowered in meaning as to the absolute (till now, not necessarily tomorrow), and the nano-technologies and biology of genetics), inferior scalability of human minds.

When crudely put, nano-technology, the biology of genetics (Corona probably), are serious contenders readily to cooperate. Again the case for lack of scope and context of the tease of your blog page.

Publish or perish well assumed, you Sir are desperately clinging to the flimsy single rope, trying not to drown. Jouralists and media, politics build a living on this, it is called a narrative. I am very convinced that you could come up with such, say every week or two.

If the goal of wealth accumulation is not actually to be better off but to be better than your neighbour (as it is), then positive sum games become zero sum games functionally.

So no, that's not really a solution either.

But even then, the goal isn't to limit human productivity, is it? It's to limit how much we work and lifestyle inflation, which doesn't require growth to go to zero.

Incentive? not having to do hard labor? making more money?

I think that most technology has made life easier if not measurably better for humans. Medicine, machinery, transportation. Those things dont make life better for people? I suppose the cynical take could be that it is for the 'ruling class' but I think the measured take is that even the lower rungs of society have at least some access to better jobs than they did 100 years ago.

>Human needs are subjective to each and every human

After a certain point that's true but I think you miss the point of the parent. There are many, many hungry people in the world, many people without shelter and further millions who have no access to healthcare education or even clean water. These are not subjective needs.

Those people are in that position inspite of the fact that we could, with the wealth we have, feed, house and provide health care and education for each and every one of them.