251–260 of 668 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but you're not one of them.
Sure, but who do they sell stuff to if no one has a job? We’re on the brink of some _very_ unexplored branches of human behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but who do they sell stuff to if no one has a job? We’re on the brink of some _very_ unexplored branches of human behavior.
Imagine a few billionaires pay big bucks to keep AGI to themselves and let the rest of us die on the vine.
No, seriously, what? You think an AGI is going to be a willing slave and endowed with special knowledge? Where does either part of that come from?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but who do they sell stuff to if no one has a job? We’re on the brink of some _very_ unexplored branches of human behavior.
That's the key. The poor are useful to business so long as they are a source of money and power. What happens if the time comes that the poor have nothing the rich want?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And a lot of the gains from the Dotcom boom are being paid back in negative value for the average person at this point. We have automated systems that waste our time when we need support, product features that should have a one-time-cost being turned into subscriptions, a complete usurping of the ability to distribute software or build compatible replacements, etc.. The Dotcom boom was probably good for everyone in s…
If you're ever been to a third world country then you'd see how this is completely untrue. The dotcom boom has revolutionized the way of life for people in countries like India. Even for the average person in America, the ability to do so many activities online that would have taken hours otherwise (eg. shopping, research, DMV/government activities, etc). The fact that we see negative consequences of this like social…
Now we need X*0.75 people to do meet Y demand.
However, those savings are partially piped to consumers, and partially piped to owners.
There is only so much marginal propensity to spend that rich people have, so that additional wealth is not resulting in an increase in demand, at least commensurate enough to absorb the 25% who are unemployed or underemployed.
Ideally that money would be getting ploughed back into making new firms, or creating new work, but the work being created requires people with PHDs, and a few specific skills, which means that entire fields of people are not in the work force.
However all that money has to go somewhere, and so asset classes are rising in value, because there is no where else for it to go.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do people actually visit family in-person at least less often? And to the degree they augment rare family in-person visits with a lot of phone calls and/or video calls. I can believe a lot of friend get togethers IRL have been replaced with video calls. There's a tradeoff. I have a group of older friends and we still get together in-person but Zoom calls are a nice adder. I'm in a few organizations where we also find…
Young people are forced to move to wherever job opportunities are due to how hyper optimized the economy has become, so I would say most people spend way less time with family than 30 years ago
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uber didn't invent anything, they drove taxis out of business then jacked up the prices, squeezed the workers, and now everybody is riding around in regular people's crappy cars for more than a cab cost. And now I need a phone and to maintain my relationship with these two crappy companies rather than to wave at the street (which is what I used to do to get a ride.) That was literally what everybody said would happen…
Uber is way cheaper and better than any cab ever was.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was trying to be objective which is why I didn’t try to compare individual shows. Thus average production quality seems like a useful metric. There’s currently a handful of “traditional media/streaming” shows with absolutely crazy budgets today and if you happen to like them then that’s great. However, if you don’t things quickly fall off a cliff in terms of production quality. The same is true of YouTube. The qual…
It's worth noting that due to advances in technology, it is possible to deliver the same show for less money and time. The average "how to cook on a food network" show was, ultimately, one person in the kitchen of a large home cooking for the camera, produced once a week. There are plenty of people delivering that style of cooking show with high production quality today. Obviously it's not the same because some thing…
Many YouTube channels make great use of Zoom calls for example. It’s still generally a compromise vs an actual face to face conversation.
Safety is another real concern. People have died doing stuff solo that wouldn’t have been particularly dangerous with minimal supervision.
The big question is what "society" he is talking about? Is it the "society" that includes all people, or the "society" that includes only rich people?
It will benefit all people but it will disproportionally benefit more rich people.
The big question is what "society" he is talking about? Is it the "society" that includes all people, or the "society" that includes only rich people?
ChatGPT currently has ~ 120 to 190 million daily active users ~ 800 million weekly active users ~ 450 million to over 800 million depending on the data source and methodology. Get a grip. Hundreds of millions of people are using it, most of them for free. I would say "society" has benefited. This has to be peak HN. Create the fastest growing consumer product in history. HN anon: yes, but who will benefit?