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

Moore's Law for Everything

moores.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 554 posts

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#221

Post by boring_twenties »

bnralt wrote: post #207
sudosysgen wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't get myself to agree with this. Indeed, it's true, horses don't create demand, but neither do unemployed humans. Our economy isn't centred around humans, it's centred around capital. Unemployable humans are as useless to it as horses, as they can't exchange their labour with capital owners (or become capital owners themselves). Unemployable people might want more, but will they get more? No, they won't.

I think there's two distinct ideas being discussed. Can people be unemployed because of structural, societal, or political reasons? Sure, and I think most people would agree. We have plenty of example of that happening - depressions, recessions, mass refugees, etc. But can people be unemployed because we run out of things for humans to do? That's what the video is arguing, but it won't be the case unless we've fully…

> That's what the video is arguing, but it won't be the case unless we've fully satisfied all of our desires. If we haven't, there are, by definition, still things to do.

Obviously true, but that doesn't mean the things still left to do can be done by anyone.

In a world where there's not enough food or housing, everyone can be gainfully employed, since just about everyone can learn to plant seeds or cut wood.

In a world where all of our material desires are already met, plenty of people will still want e.g. new AAA-quality video games every year. But what are the people who aren't programmers or artists supposed to do?

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#222

Post by sudosysgen »

ls65536 wrote: post #209
sudosysgen wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't get myself to agree with this. Indeed, it's true, horses don't create demand, but neither do unemployed humans. Our economy isn't centred around humans, it's centred around capital. Unemployable humans are as useless to it as horses, as they can't exchange their labour with capital owners (or become capital owners themselves). Unemployable people might want more, but will they get more? No, they won't.

> horses don't create demand, but neither do unemployed humans. Sure they do, although almost certainly nowhere near enough to sustain our current situation and the system it's built atop of (from which the holders of capital seem to have benefited immensely), although perhaps this is exactly the point you were making. It might not be recognizable to most people living in modernity today, but in general humans will a…

Indeed, horses like most humans do not create demand innately, they only do so insofar as their labour must be reproduced, which naturally is more for humans than horses because humans can negotiate wages, but not incredibly so for those at the bottom.

"It might not be recognizable to most people living in modernity today, but in general humans will always trade (by some means, not necessarily with "money") with other humans whenever relative specializations occur between them, which even in small groups is likely to happen naturally."

This is reductive. Yes, humans have always traded. But never before our current economic system has trade been the primary ordinator of people's lives - this is a modern creation, indeed core to property itself.

"After all, it's not the exchange of paper bills or service to capital in particular that makes an economy, and there is always going to be demand of something and some supply of some of those things as long as humans are around and interacting, regardless of how miserable the existence is, or how "inefficient" such a system might be."

This is also reductive in the same sense. Traditionally in human society, demand and supply were not, for the majority of people, the very core of one's life - that is a modern invention. And that was only possible in the framework where labour became service to capital before service to oneself. Outside this set of relations of production, the problem of runaway unemployment isn't possible, because employment itself is not a major productive force. And that's precisely how humans got into a situation like that of workhorses - or rather how workhorses got into the situation of humans!

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#223

Post by erikstarck »

sudosysgen wrote: post #175
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Horses aren't the center of the economy, though. It's fundamentally different. Horses might always want more and more things no matter how much they get. But they don't create demand in our economy, so we'll never know. No matter how much humans get, they'll always want more. And other humans will have to come up with ways to meet that demand. Sure - if we ever reach a time where the entire human race says "this is e…

I can't get myself to agree with this. Indeed, it's true, horses don't create demand, but neither do unemployed humans. Our economy isn't centred around humans, it's centred around capital. Unemployable humans are as useless to it as horses, as they can't exchange their labour with capital owners (or become capital owners themselves). Unemployable people might want more, but will they get more? No, they won't.

“...it's centred around capital”

Well, actually around value - which is different from capital. It just so happens that we use capital to trade a lot (but not all) of what we consider to be valuable.

Even in a world of abundance there would be things that are scarce but we still consider valuable. Social status for example.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#224

Post by jay_kyburz »

This essay doesn't address any of the key problems often raised when talking about AI and UBI.

Here is Australia we are already seeing one the effects of very cheap stuff. Skilled labor is significantly more expensive than buying things, so anything that has to have an Australian involved is ridiculously expensive. Calling the Plumber to fix a drain? That's a week of groceries or perhaps a new TV.

At some point soon there is going to be a fairly significant upheaval, not just when AI takes some peoples jobs, but when it's just not worth it to pay somebody $200 an hour to do something for you. I think to some extent, peoples time is linked to the price of products you can buy.

Eventually, Plumbers won't need $200 an hour to buy their own things, they can drop their rates. Wages everywhere might fall.

Taxing land sounds fair enough, but I was under the impression we are already subsidizing a lot of farming anyhow, and since we are racing to the bottom on food pricing, there is not much profit to be made on food anyhow.

Any aren't we supposed to be reclaiming land to turn back into national parks, planting trees, and capturing carbon.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#225

Post by niels_bom »

joe_the_user wrote: post #78

In the next five years, computer programs that can think will read legal documents and give medical advice. Aside from the other points, taking "AI" as it exists in it's present form (deep neural networks and related) as specifically the bringer of unlimited wealth certainly puffs up the various "AI companies" notably OpenAI (It should be noted that OpenAI's most famous product, GPT-3, can generate strings that sound…

Thanks. I was starting to think I was the only one not believing in the AI hype train.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#226

Post by koboll »

sudosysgen wrote: post #175
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Horses aren't the center of the economy, though. It's fundamentally different. Horses might always want more and more things no matter how much they get. But they don't create demand in our economy, so we'll never know. No matter how much humans get, they'll always want more. And other humans will have to come up with ways to meet that demand. Sure - if we ever reach a time where the entire human race says "this is e…

I can't get myself to agree with this. Indeed, it's true, horses don't create demand, but neither do unemployed humans. Our economy isn't centred around humans, it's centred around capital. Unemployable humans are as useless to it as horses, as they can't exchange their labour with capital owners (or become capital owners themselves). Unemployable people might want more, but will they get more? No, they won't.

>horses don't create demand, but neither do unemployed humans.

What Sam is proposing is massive wealth redistribution by taxing land and capital. Seen any memes referencing $1400 lately? Unemployed humans who are given cash absolutely create demand.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#227

Post by sudosysgen »

erikstarck wrote: post #223
sudosysgen wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't get myself to agree with this. Indeed, it's true, horses don't create demand, but neither do unemployed humans. Our economy isn't centred around humans, it's centred around capital. Unemployable humans are as useless to it as horses, as they can't exchange their labour with capital owners (or become capital owners themselves). Unemployable people might want more, but will they get more? No, they won't.

“...it's centred around capital” Well, actually around value - which is different from capital. It just so happens that we use capital to trade a lot (but not all) of what we consider to be valuable. Even in a world of abundance there would be things that are scarce but we still consider valuable. Social status for example.

Certainly, our economy is not centred around abstract value. Value for who? What kind of value? Does value rule the life of the average man, or does trading his labour for access to capital and a share of it's proceeds describe the relation one has to the economy more accurately?

Trade is not what I'm discussing as an abstract concept, but instead how we structure our relationship to sustenance and work. That is centred around capital, not value - hence the word "capitalism". Which is not necessarily a bad thing, in some ways this is a good organization for things we care about, but it's not mainly about maximizing value for everyone, it came about very mechanistically.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#228

Post by dvdhnt »

The beginning of the "Capitalism for Everyone" section is laughably out of touch with the reality of 2021.

However, buried further down is an agreeable point:

> We should therefore focus on taxing capital rather than labor

Yes, along with repatriation of capital so tax payers can't stash their cash abroad.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#229

Post by sudosysgen »

koboll wrote: post #226
sudosysgen wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't get myself to agree with this. Indeed, it's true, horses don't create demand, but neither do unemployed humans. Our economy isn't centred around humans, it's centred around capital. Unemployable humans are as useless to it as horses, as they can't exchange their labour with capital owners (or become capital owners themselves). Unemployable people might want more, but will they get more? No, they won't.

>horses don't create demand, but neither do unemployed humans. What Sam is proposing is massive wealth redistribution by taxing land and capital. Seen any memes referencing $1400 lately? Unemployed humans who are given cash absolutely create demand.

Certainly, if you put wealth redistribution into the equation, then we don't have this argument anymore. But I'm arguing in the abstract sense outside of government intervention or structural modification.

Besides, massive wealth redistribution in the form of direct payments indiscriminately is not politically viable right now, but maybe this line of argument can help.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#230

Post by fastball »

dudeman13 wrote: post #146
fastball wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should probably move out there then.

Need Want

GC claimed that food is all that is needed, and that their wants were satisfied by the additional of the other two things.

The fact is that the average human is not actually content to be one notch above animal with "food, sex, and purpose". That is why we have progressed much further than just accepting those basics as all we need. But I think our improvements on those things do provide enough value for the average person to be happy.

- Tasty food

- Safe sex (and relative ease of reproduction)

- Multi-variate / chosen purpose.

Plus other methods to remove annoying friction from your life:

- Optimized shelter

- Optimized travel

- Consumption of various raw goods (not for food and not for shelter). e.g. 3D Printers!

Post reply on HN