241–249 of 249 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> You are an idiot narcissist, unable to comprehend that other people might not hold the same values as you. This defect in you, the inability to recognize that other people might want different things than you, will forever render you unable to connect with people at large. I wonder if you see the irony? Ultimately, my comment refers not to individual values, but truisms of the human condition, backed by decades of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone doesn’t have a job that pays, how do they get those things? I.e. destitute and homeless people do manage to creatively scrounge. But now imagine millions or billions of destitute people with no hope of a paying job. What are they going to scrounge in that context? Jobs are a critical ingredient to people buying those common things with the rich.
This jump from "AI assistance" to "millions or billions of destitute people" is unjustified. Yes, AI can assist, but it doesn't replace human presence as it is now, in any field. Instead it creates demand for improvements across the board and creates more work for us. When we went from horses to cars, we increased the volume of shipments and percentually more people work in transportation now than in 1910. Another ex…
In this situation, we are the horses
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Advertising and data? Really? So people can’t pay for anything, but companies somehow see value in trying to sell things to them?
Money will still exist. Maybe you don't have any but other people might run around with pocket change. You'll be able to get a free meal from the poverty bot serving A/B testing burgers and cataloguing your emotional responses to receiving and eating them and giving up the rights to your footage for use in advertising material. Good business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here you are making a mistake - AGI by its nature should know all there is to know, and yet need to make progress by searching for new approaches and discoveries. That doesn't happen all at once, it works field by field, and discoveries actually come from experimental validation. There is no "secretly developing AGI" to "quickly concentrate all wealth and power". Like bitcoin, you are basically saying someone could o…
> the combined research power of humanity, which is necessary for AGI to advance further, is much deeper than any one entity AGI won't need people to advance further. That is pretty much the functional definition. But the bar is even lower. Just as today's rich keep increasing the economic distance between themselves and the poor, with the middle and creative classes already feeling that gravity, so will the AGI's -…
No, AI can ideate as well as any human, but that is not sufficient. Scientists ideate and test. Engineers design and test. There's always a validation stage, where ideas meet the bottleneck of reality.
Are you saying scientists without labs and tools to run experiments on could do science? It's all in the brain or GPU? That is so naive.
I wonder at the long term vision for humanity. We have AI replacing a lot of art, writing, coding, etc. We have a bunch of robotics companies racing to replace physical human labor. Waymo and Tesla replacing drivers. What role do the majority of people realistically play in this world?
My thoughts are a few: There is a lot of undone labor in the world. In developing countries the middle class has drivers, cooks, housekeepers. That’s only possible due to inequality. With automation we can all get that. These people with tons of help by and large live fulfilled lives. You find fulfillment in family, friendships, and non necessary creation (art, research, etc); whatever makes you happy. But most of al…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s time to find out what value our values really have. Which is exciting, as long as the net results are better for human beings. I really don't want to see us make human experience worse to ensure that AI is able to be more successful. That defeats the purpose of any technological invention.
Touchscreens in cars is a great example of making the human experience worse for the sake of tech. Everyone prefers physical tactile buttons for a set interface, but that stands in the way of progress for cars! Guess where the industry is going...
It almost feels easier to disassemble and resew the shirt from recycled fabric. I’m mostly joking, but my point is that physical AI probably implies a complete rethink of every individual routine from first principles: why fold the shirt at all? Why not just-in-time-ironing? We’re focusing on the hard problems because we’re imitating how a human with limited resources would approach the issue. If you asked a robot to…
Why fold clothes? Because they take up less room when you fold them.
Why have a home kitchen? Because some people actually enjoy cooking at home.
I think the bigger point here is a robot that conforms to the way humans work. You seem to be implying that if we just had better focused processes, we could do away with some vestiges of our old way of living, which seems to be the exact opposite point of building an AGI robot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That could just as easily be turned on it's head too - if you don't need skilled (or any) staff to shop, cook, serve, and then washup, why would you ever NOT eat at home? Especially if it can operate very quietly, one fairly slow robot could do probably all the housework, and could do it at night when it's literally out of sight and out of mind. It would feel like magic . You'd wake up every morning to a clean house…
Most people go to restaurants because of the social benefits, not the labour savings. The idea of people or groups of people siloing themselves into their ultra-convenient homes and never interact with others is a dystopia and a sure sign of an already broken community.
It almost feels easier to disassemble and resew the shirt from recycled fabric. I’m mostly joking, but my point is that physical AI probably implies a complete rethink of every individual routine from first principles: why fold the shirt at all? Why not just-in-time-ironing? We’re focusing on the hard problems because we’re imitating how a human with limited resources would approach the issue. If you asked a robot to…
I’m sure for _some_ people there’s _some_ truth to what you say. Why fold clothes? Because they take up less room when you fold them. Why have a home kitchen? Because some people actually enjoy cooking at home. I think the bigger point here is a robot that conforms to the way humans work. You seem to be implying that if we just had better focused processes, we could do away with some vestiges of our old way of living…
You can find similar statements people have found from old "man on the street" TV interviews about mobile phones. You have people saying they can use them to call a friend to ask for directions. Or call to ask if a store is open, or if they have an item in stock. Or to make last minute dinner reservations. Turns out they didn't really need to want to "call" to do these things, that was just the previous tech-generation way to get that info and having a mobile app works much better in (many) cases.
Home robotics is going to enable us to reconsider other patterns, that still serve the same outcome. Some will be worse, some better, but on net things will settle out over time.
Even more radical, why keep the same clothes at all? If you can 3d print exactly what you want on demand, with perfect fit, and recycle it after wear, do you even need laundry? Maybe what you need is instead of a closet is some kind of 3d imager of your body / fabrication room.