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

231–240 of 920 posts

Re: AI is different

#231

Post by atleastoptimal »

notyourav wrote: post #162
atleastoptimal wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thousands have died directly due to known defects in manufactured cars. Those companies (Ford, others) still are operating today. Even if driverless cars killed more people than humans they would see mass adoption eventually. However they are subject to farr higher scrutiny than human drivers and even so make fewer mistakes, avoid accidents more frequently and can't get drunk, tired, angry, or distracted.

A faulty break pad or an engine doesn’t take decisions that might endanger people. Self-driving cars do. They might also get hacked pretty thoroughly. For the same reason, I’d probably never buy a home robot with more capabilities then a vacuum cleaner.

Current non-self-driving cars on the road can be hacked

https://www.wired.com/story/kia-web-vulnerability-vehicle-ha...

But even if they can theoretically be hacked, so far Waymos are still safer and more reliable than human drivers. The biggest danger someone has riding in one is someone destroying it for vindictive reasons.

Re: AI is different

#232

Post by StanislavPetrov »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #180
lightbritefight wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self-driving car companies dont want a unfiied signalling platform or other "open for all" infrastructure updates. They want to own self-driving, to lock you into a subscription on their platform. Literally the only open source self driving platform, from trillion to billion to million dollar companies is comma.ai, founded by Geohot. Thats it. Its actually very good, and I bet they would welcome these upgrades, but t…

Yeah, that must be it. It's a conspiracy.

This is all happening right out in the open.

Re: AI is different

#233

Post by juniperus »

aorloff wrote: post #181
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…

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 ?

The taxes will be most burdensome for the wealthiest and most productive of institutions, which is generally why these arrangements collapse economies and nations. UBI is hard to implement because it incentivizes non-productive behavior and disincentivizes productive activity. This creates economic crisis, taxes are basically a smaller scale version of this, UBI is like a more comprehensive wealth redistribution scheme. The creation of a syndicate (in this case, the state) to steal from the productive to give to the non-productive is a return to how humanity functioned before the creation of state-like structures when marauders and bandits used violence to steal from those who created anything. Eventually, the state arose to create arrangements and contracts to prevent theft, but later become the thief itself, leading to economic collapse and the cyclical revolutionary cycle.

So, AI may certainly bring about UBI, but the corporations that are being milked by the state to provide wealth to the non-productive will begin to foment revolution along with those who find this arrangement unfair, and the productive activity of those especially productive individuals will be directed toward revolution instead of economic productivity. Companies have made nations many times before, and I'm sure it'll happen again.

Re: AI is different

#234

Post by atleastoptimal »

morsecodist wrote: post #153
atleastoptimal wrote: post #80

This is an accurate assessment. I do feel that there is a routine bias on HN to underplay AI. I think it's people not wanting to lose control or relative status in the world. AI is an existential threat to the unique utility of humans, which has been the last line of defense against absolute despotism (i.e. a tyrannical government will not kill all its citizens because it still needs them to perform jobs. If humans a…

> I do feel that there is a routine bias on HN to underplay AI It's always interesting to see this take because my perception is the exact opposite. I don't think there's ever been an issue for me personally with a bigger mismatch in perceptions than AI. It sometimes feels like the various sides live in different realities.

Any big AI release, some of the top comments are usually claiming either the tech itself is bad, relaying a specific anecdote about some AI model messing up or some study where AI isn't good, or claiming that AI is a huge bubble that will inevitably crash. I've seen the most emphatic denials of the utility of AI here go much farther than anywhere else where criticism of AI is mild skepticism. Among many people it is a matter of tribal warfare that AI=bad.

Re: AI is different

#235

Post by tokioyoyo »

joshdavham wrote: post #152
tokioyoyo wrote: post #102

One thing that doesn’t seem to be discussed with the whole “tech revolution just creates more jobs” angle is that, in the near future, there are no real incentives for that. If we’re going down the route of declining birth rates, it’s implied we’ll also need less jobs. From one perspective, it’s good that we’re trying to over-automate now, so we can sustain ourselves in old age. But decreasing population also implies…

If there are going to less people in the future, especially as the world ages, I think a lot of this automation will be arriving at the right moment.

I agree with the idea, but it might get worse for a lot of people, which eventually would spiral down to the general society.

Re: AI is different

#236

Post by StanislavPetrov »

ulfw wrote: post #195
CamperBob2 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self-driving cars are a political problem, not a technical problem. A functioning government would put everything from automation-friendly signaling standards to battery-swapping facilities into place. We humans used to do that sort of thing, but not anymore, so... bring on the AI. It won't work as well as it might otherwise be able to, but it'll probably kill fewer humans on the road at the end of the day. A low bar…

Why would politicians want to: - destroy voting population's jobs - put power in the hand of 1-2 tech companies - clog streets with more cars rather than build trams, trains, maglevs, you name it

Because the primary goal of the vast majority of politicians is to collect life-changing, generational wealth by any means necessary.

Re: AI is different

#237

Post by simianwords »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #127
devmor wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? The internet did that ages ago. We just pretended it didn't because some students didn't know how to use Google.

Everyone knows how to use Google. There's a difference between a corpus of data available online and an intelligent chatbot that can answer any permutation of questions with high accuracy with no manual searching or effort.

Do you really think the jump from books to freely globally accessible data instantly available is a smaller jump than internet to ChatGPT? This is insane!!

Re: AI is different

#238

Post by DrewADesign »

bongodongobob wrote: post #98
ares623 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This pisses me off so much. So many engineers are so excited to work on and with these systems, opening 20 prs per day to make their employers happy going “yes boss!” They think their $300k total compensation will give them a seat at the table for what they’re cheering on to come. I say that anyone who needed to go the grocery this week will not be spared by the economic downturn this tech promises. Unless you have y…

The same argument could be made for actual engineers working on steam engines, nuclear power, or semiconductors. Make of that what you will.

I’m not sure I see how: none of those technologies had the stated goal of replacing their creators.

Re: AI is different

#239

Post by ludicrousdispla »

andrei_says_ wrote: post #164
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…

Not sure how exactly politicians will jump from “minimal wages don’t have to be livable wages” and “people who are able to work should absolutely not have access to free healthcare” and “any tax-supported benefits are actually undeserved entitlements and should be eliminated” to “everyone deserves a universal basic income”.

Politicians are elected for limited terms, not for life, so they don't need to change their opinion for a change to occur.

Re: AI is different

#240

Post by bravesoul2 »

Davidzheng wrote: post #124
ahurmazda wrote: post #13

When I hear folks glazing some kinda impending jobless utopia , I think of the intervening years. I shudder. As they say, "An empty stomach knows no morality."

There is no jobless utopia. Even if everyone is paid and well-off with high living standards. That is no world in which humans can thrive where everyone is retired and doing their own interests.

Jobless means you dont need a job. But you'd make a job for yourself. Companies will offer interesting missions instead of money. And by mission I mean real missions like space travel.
Post reply on HN