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

Replacement.ai

replacement.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 725 posts

Re: Replacement.ai

#301

Post by vineyardmike »

skybrian wrote: post #117
reactordev wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you end up with is a dozen people owning all the wealth and everyone else owning nothing, resulting in the robots not doing anything because no one is buying anything, resulting in a complete collapse of the economic system the world uses to operate. Mass riots, hunger wars, political upheaval, world war 3. Nuke the opposition before they nuke you.

That’s one scenario, but there are others. There are lots of open-weight models. Why wouldn’t ownership of AI end up being widely distributed? Mabybe it's more like solar panels than nuclear power plants?

Economies of Scale have been such a huge influence on the last ~by 300 years of industrial change. In 1725 people sat at home hand crafting things to sell to neighbors. In 1825, capitalists were able to open factories that hired people. By 1925, those products were built in a massive factory that employed the entire town and were shipped all over the country on rail roads. By 2025 factories might be partially automated while hiring tens of thousands of people, cost billions to build and the products get distributed globally. The same trend applies to knowledge work as well, despite the rise of personal computing.

Companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on training AI models, why wouldn’t they expect to own the reward from that investment? These models are best run on $100k+ fleets of power hungry, interconnected GPUs, just like factory equipment vs a hand loom.

Open weight models are a political and marketing tool. They’re not being opened up out of kindness, or because “data wants to be free”. AI firms open models to try and destabilize American companies by “dumping”, and AI firms open models as a way to incentivize companies who don’t like closed-source models to buy their hosted services.

Re: Replacement.ai

#302

Post by franga2000 »

brap wrote: post #203
franga2000 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The government" needs time to fix this and until then, we need to not automate everyone out of a job. If that means we don't "get to the future" until then, fine. "Fault" or not, the AI companies are putting people in danger now and unless we can implement a more proper solution extremely quickly, they just have to put up with being slowed down. But it's not like "the government" (as if there is just one) simply doe…

So your government should pump the brakes, while other governments rush towards ASI. And you believe this will benefit you, long term? Or do you believe in “global cooperation”?

This is exactly why I put "the government" in quotes. The parent post was saying "the government" should just fix the underlying problem instead of showing AI progress. This has the same problem - no government can do that alone.

So it's either "we all science ourselves out of a job and die from uncontrolled capitalism" or "we try to do something about the uncontrolled capitalism and in the meantime, everyone else keeps sciencing everyone out of a job". The result is the same, but some of us at least tried to do something about it.

Re: Replacement.ai

#303

Post by onraglanroad »

great_wubwub wrote: post #251
recursivegirth wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both marriage and job contracts are mutually binding legal agreements. You have the agency within those dynamics that the law gives you, which varies by region/jurisdiction respectively. Your partner in some (most?) cases can absolutely make an executive decision that ends your marriage, with you having no options but to accept the outcome. Your argument falls a little flat.

I'm not sure where you live, but employee contracts in the US are very rare in tech. Unions, execs, and rock stars - that's about it. The rest of us are at-will and disposable. Worker protections in the US are limited to "the machine can't eat more than two of your fingers per day" and "you can't work people more than 168 hours in a week".

> employee contracts in the US are very rare in tech

Is that true? I've never had a job where I didn't sign a contract (in the UK and for multinationals including American companies). I wouldn't start without a contract.

And I'm not in any rockstar position. It's bog standard for employees.

Re: Replacement.ai

#304

Post by xpe »

sharts wrote: post #242
TechSquidTV wrote: post #86

Personal belief, but robots coming for your jobs is not a valid argument against robots. If robots can do a job better and/or faster, they should be the ones doing the jobs. Specialization is how we got to the future. So the problem isn't robots, it's the structure of how we humans rely on jobs for income. I don't necessarily feel like it's the AI company's problem to fix either. This is what government is for, and n…

Replace robots with immigrants and it’s the same fear mongering as usual.

There is much more to concerns about AI than fear mongering. Reasonable people can disagree on predictions about probabilities of future events, but they should not discount reasonable arguments.

Re: Replacement.ai

#305

Post by reactordev »

jayd16 wrote: post #295
gnarlouse wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My potato RTX vs your supercomputer cluster and circular chipfab/ai-training economy. Challenge: “Be competitive in the market place.” Go.

What market? If this shocks employment numbers what can happen other than market collapse?

This is the only outcome any economic model concludes. Complete market collapse. It will scream before it collapses (meaning it will shoot to the moon, then completely collapse). Way worse than the Great Depression because instead of 26% unemployment, it will be 80%.

Re: Replacement.ai

#306

Post by bamboozled »

tasuki wrote: post #105
gnfargbl wrote: post #27

The hypothesized superintelligent AI will be essentially immortal. If it destroys us, it will be entirely alone in the known Universe, forever. That thought should terrify it enough to keep us around... even if only in the sense that I keep cats.

If it's so intelligent, it can probably create something better than humans, no?

This is a pretty ancient idea, it’s interesting how there is an intersection beteeen AI and god, I don’t think our minds can avoid it.

Hindus believed god was the thing you describe, infinitely intelligent, able to do several things at once etc, and they believe we’re part of that things dream…to literally keep things spicy. Just as an elephant is part of that dream.

I pasted an interesting quote in another comment by Alan Watts that sums it up better.

Simulation theory is another version of religion imo.

Re: Replacement.ai

#307

Post by [deleted] »

TechSquidTV wrote: post #86

Personal belief, but robots coming for your jobs is not a valid argument against robots. If robots can do a job better and/or faster, they should be the ones doing the jobs. Specialization is how we got to the future. So the problem isn't robots, it's the structure of how we humans rely on jobs for income. I don't necessarily feel like it's the AI company's problem to fix either. This is what government is for, and n…

[deleted]

Re: Replacement.ai

#308

Post by overvale »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #124
lateforwork wrote: post #111

You don't need money. What you need is wealth. I am going to leave it to PG to explain the difference [1]: Wealth is not money. Wealth is stuff we want: food, clothes, houses, cars, gadgets, travel to interesting places, and so on. You can have wealth without having money. If you had a magic machine that could on command make you a car or cook you dinner or do your laundry, or do anything else you wanted, you wouldn'…

My main concerns: 1. When such wealth is possible through autonomous means, how can the earth survive such unprecedented demands on its natural resources? 2. Should I believe that someone with more wealth (and as such, more power) than I have would not use that power to overwhelm me? Isn't my demand on resources only going to get in their way? Why would they allow me to draw on resources as well? 3. It seems like the…

I’m not so sure access to scarce resources = wealth. Wealth can be an abundance of valuable things that are not scarce.

Re: Replacement.ai

#309

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

recursivegirth wrote: post #214
thekevan wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your marriage is a decision between you and your spouse and is a mutual decision. A job is a decision that your boss(es) made and can be taken without your consent. You don't have the ownership of your job that you do of your marriage.

Both marriage and job contracts are mutually binding legal agreements. You have the agency within those dynamics that the law gives you, which varies by region/jurisdiction respectively. Your partner in some (most?) cases can absolutely make an executive decision that ends your marriage, with you having no options but to accept the outcome. Your argument falls a little flat.

I think I have discovered gold in the comments

Someone makes a comment about how its okay for things to be replaced in specialization in business

Then someone equates it to intimacy

Then someone says its only possible in HN

Then we get into some nifty discussion of can we argue about the similarity between marriage and job contracts and first they disagree

Now we come to your comment which I can kinda agree about and here is my take

Marriage and business both require some definition of laws and a trust in state which comes out of how state has a monopoly (well legal monopoly) over violence and how it can punish people who don't follow laws over it and how the past record of it handling cases have been

As an example, I doubt how marriages can be a good mutually binding legal agreement in something like saudi arabia which is mysognistic. Same can be said for exploitations in businesses for countries, same countries like saudia arabia and qatar have some people from south asia like india etc. in a sort of legal slavery where they are forced to reside in their own designated quarters of the country and they are insanely restricted. Look it up.

Also off topic but I asked LLM's to find countries where divorce for women are illegal and I confirmed it, as an example, divorce in philipines for non muslims are banned (muslim woman's divorces are handled via sharia law) I have since fact checked it as well via searching but it's just that divorce itself isn't an option in philipines but rather limiting marital dissolution to annulment or legal separation

"In the Philippines, the general legal framework under the Family Code prohibits absolute divorce for the majority of the population, limiting marital dissolution to annulment or legal separation " [1]

[1]: source: https://www.respicio.ph/commentaries/divorce-under-muslim-pe...

Re: Replacement.ai

#310

Post by [deleted] »

theptip wrote: post #76
gnfargbl wrote: post #27

The hypothesized superintelligent AI will be essentially immortal. If it destroys us, it will be entirely alone in the known Universe, forever. That thought should terrify it enough to keep us around... even if only in the sense that I keep cats.

This premise is a bit silly. If the machine god gets bored it can just create new life in its own image.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN