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

AI is different

antirez.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 920 posts

Re: AI is different

#181

Post by aorloff »

schneems wrote: post #69
chrisco255 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but which can be trained to the new job opportunities more easily than humans can What makes you think that? Self driving cars have had untold billions of dollars in reaearch and decades in applied testing, iteration, active monitoring, etc and it still has a very long tail of unaddressed issues. They've been known to ignore police traffic redirections, they've run right through construction barriers, and recently…

A few months ago I saw one driverless car maybe every three days. Now I see roughly 3-5 every day. I get that it’s taken a long time and a lot of hype that hasn’t panned out. But once the tech works and it’s just about juicing the scale then things shift rapidly. Even if you think “oh that’s the next generation’s problem” if there is a chance you’re wrong, or if you want to be kind to the next generation: now is the…

Every time someone casually throws out UBI my mind goes to the question "who is paying taxes when some people are on UBI ?"

Is there like a transition period where some people don't have to pay taxes and yet don't get UBI, and if so, why hasn't that come yet ? Why aren't the minimum tax thresholds going up if UBI could be right around the corner ?

Re: AI is different

#182

Post by leshow »

schneems wrote: post #69
chrisco255 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but which can be trained to the new job opportunities more easily than humans can What makes you think that? Self driving cars have had untold billions of dollars in reaearch and decades in applied testing, iteration, active monitoring, etc and it still has a very long tail of unaddressed issues. They've been known to ignore police traffic redirections, they've run right through construction barriers, and recently…

A few months ago I saw one driverless car maybe every three days. Now I see roughly 3-5 every day. I get that it’s taken a long time and a lot of hype that hasn’t panned out. But once the tech works and it’s just about juicing the scale then things shift rapidly. Even if you think “oh that’s the next generation’s problem” if there is a chance you’re wrong, or if you want to be kind to the next generation: now is the…

UBI is not a good solution because you still have to provision everything on the market, so it's a subsidy to private companies that sell the necessities of life on the market. If we're dreaming up solutions to problems, much better would be to remove the essentials from the market and provide them to everyone universally. Non-market housing, healthcare, education all provided to every citizen by virtue of being a human.

Re: AI is different

#183

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

econ wrote: post #160

For me it maps elegantly on previous happenings. When the radio came people almost instantly stopped singing and playing instruments. Many might not be aware of it but for thousands of years singing was a normal expression of a good mood and learning to play an instrument was a gateway to lifting the mood. Dancing is still in working order but it lacks the emotional depth that provided a window into the soul of those…

> for thousands of years singing was a normal expression of a good mood

Back in the day singing was what everybody did to pass the time. (Especially in boring and monotonous situations.)

Re: AI is different

#184

Post by dkersten »

LPisGood wrote: post #37
Refreeze5224 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a job for a very small number of people. Where will everyone else work?

Why do they have to work?

Because the people with the money aren’t going to just give it to everyone else. We already see the richest people hoard their money and still be unsatisfied with how much they have. We already see productivity gains not transfer any benefit to the majority of people.

Re: AI is different

#185

Post by Animats »

ziofill wrote: post #92
DiscourseFan wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The major shift for me is now its normal to take Waymos. Yeah, there aren't as fast as Uber if you have to get across town, but for trips less than 10 miles they're my go to now.

I’m curious, are they now fully autonomous? I remember some time ago they had a remote operator.

Waymo has a control center, but it's customer service, not remote driving. They can look at the sensor data, give hints to the car ("back out, turn around, try another route") and talk to the customer, but can't take direct control and drive remotely.

Baidu's system in China really does have remote drivers.[1]

Tesla also appears to have remote drivers, in addition to someone in each car with an emergency stop button.[2]

[1] https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2025/05/comparing-robotax...

[2] https://insideevs.com/news/760863/tesla-hiring-humans-to-con...

Re: AI is different

#186

Post by xpe »

itsalotoffun wrote: post #136

> The future may reduce the economic prosperity and push humanity to switch to some different economic system (maybe a better system). Markets don’t want to accept that. [Emphasis added] What a silly premise. Markets don't care . All markets do is express the collective opinion; in the short term as a voting machine, in the long term as a weighing machine. Seeing a real uptick of socio-policital prognostication from…

> All markets do is express the collective opinion; in the short term as a voting machine, in the long term as a weighing machine.

I prefer the concepts and rigor from political economy: markets are both preference aggregators and coordination mechanisms.

Does your framing (voting machines and weighing machines) offer more clarity and if so, how? I’m not seeing it.

Re: AI is different

#187

Post by leshow »

visarga wrote: post #107
schneems wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few months ago I saw one driverless car maybe every three days. Now I see roughly 3-5 every day. I get that it’s taken a long time and a lot of hype that hasn’t panned out. But once the tech works and it’s just about juicing the scale then things shift rapidly. Even if you think “oh that’s the next generation’s problem” if there is a chance you’re wrong, or if you want to be kind to the next generation: now is the…

> I think the most sensible answer would be something like UBI. Having had the experience of living under communist regime prior to 1989 I have zero trust in the state providing support, while I am totally dependent and have no recourse. Instead I would rather rely on my own two hands like my grandparents did. I see a world where we can build anything we want with our own hands and AI automation. Jobs might become op…

In your world where jobs become "optional" because a private company has decided to fire half their workforce, and the state also does not provide some kind of support, what do all the "optional" people do?

Re: AI is different

#188

Post by codr7 »

The biggest difference to me is that it seems to change people in bad ways, just from interacting with it.

Language is a very powerful tool for transformation, we already knew this.

Letting it loose on this scale without someone behind the wheel is begging for trouble imo.

Re: AI is different

#189

Post by ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 »

econ wrote: post #160

For me it maps elegantly on previous happenings. When the radio came people almost instantly stopped singing and playing instruments. Many might not be aware of it but for thousands of years singing was a normal expression of a good mood and learning to play an instrument was a gateway to lifting the mood. Dancing is still in working order but it lacks the emotional depth that provided a window into the soul of those…

Humans sing. I sing every day, and I don't have any social or financial incentives driving me to do so. I also listen to the radio and other media, still singing.

Re: AI is different

#190

Post by sebmellen »

Waterluvian wrote: post #175

The thing that blows me away is that I woke up one day and was confronted with a chat bot that could communicate in near perfect English. I dunno why exactly but that’s what felt the most stunning about this whole era. It can screw up the number of fingers in an image or the details of a recipe or misidentify elements of an image, etc. but I’ve never seen it make a typo or use improper grammar or whatnot.

In a sense, LLMs emergently figured out the deep structure of language before we did, and that’s the most remarkable thing about them.
Post reply on HN