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

441–450 of 725 posts

Re: Replacement.ai

#441

Post by yair99dd »

Harrari on humans

> in the industrial revolution of the 19th century what Humanity basically learned to produce was all kinds of stuff like textiles and shoes and weapons and vehicles and this was enough for very few countries that underwent the revolution fast enough to subjugate everybody else

what we're talking about now is like a Second Industrial Revolution but the product this time will not be textiles or machines or vehicles or even weapons the product this time will be humans themselves.

we are basically learning to produce bodies and Minds bodies and minds are going .... the two main products of the next wave of all these changes and if there is a gap between those that know to produce bodies and minds and those that do not then this is far greater than anything we saw before in history and this time if you're not part of the Revolution fast enough then you probably become extinct

once you know how to produce bodies and brains and Minds so cheap labor in Africa or South Asia wherever it simply counts for nothing

again I think the biggest question ... maybe in economics and politics of the coming decades will be what to do with all these useless people

I don't think we have an economic model to for that, my best guess which is , just a guess, is that food will not be a problem uh with that kind of Technology you will be able to produce food for to feed everybody the problem is more important ... what to do with them and how will they find some sense of meaning in life when they are basically meaningless worthless

my best guess at present is a combination of drugs and computer games

https://youtu.be/QkYWwWAXgKI

Re: Replacement.ai

#442

Post by einsteinx2 »

saulpw wrote: post #431
einsteinx2 wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations which are entirely made up of people. Not to mention the people that physically built and maintain the data center. Or did the actual legal fiction of a corporation do it? Maybe the articles of incorporation documents got up and did the work themselves?

It means that no one cares about the creations except in terms of money. If an Oracle building burns down and no one is hurt, I wouldn't shed a single tear. If an artistic graffiti mural adorned its wall, I would be more upset.

I get what you mean, but my point is even that Oracle building was designed, built, and maintained by the work of real people. Many of which I assume take pride in their work and may in fact care if it’s burned down.

Re: Replacement.ai

#443

Post by EchoReflection »

warent wrote: post #289
igor47 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jobs aren't just business. Humans derive a lot of meaning from being useful and valued.

You’re right and validating the point. A specific part of GP’s comment keeps getting overlooked: So the problem isn't robots, it's the structure of how we humans rely on jobs for income. Humans being forced to trade time for survival, money, and the enrichment of the elite, is a bug. We are socially conditioned to believe it’s a feature and the purpose. Nobody is saying robots should replace human connection and expr…

it's only for "the enrichment of the elite" if one looks at life with a perspective of entitlement, resentment and disregard for the nature of...nature (existence,randomness, realty itself).

just because humans can't "outdo" technology doesn't mean we should "blame" "the elite". that's literally how the great catastrophes of socialism, communism, Marxism, etc started

Humans aren't "forced" to do anything, (depending on how you look at it). You could just lay down, "live" in your own excrement until you starve to death. That seems reasonable! Liberate the proletariat! Why doesn't everyone else work for me?!

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ressentiment

Re: Replacement.ai

#444

Post by atleastoptimal »

nharada wrote: post #419

How come I never see any concrete proposals for how to equitably distribute the wealth of AI? It's always either "stop AI immediately for the sake of our labor" or "don't worry sometime in the future everyone will live in utopia probably". Here's a starter example: any company whose main business is training AI models needs must give up 10% of their company to a fund whose charter is long-term establishing basic care…

The problem is there are many people who think AI is a big scam and has no chance of long-term profitability, so a fund would be a non-starter, or people who think AI will be so powerful that any paltry sums would pale in comparison to ASI's full dominance of the lightcone, leaving human habitability a mere afterthought.

There honestly aren't a lot of people in the middle amazingly, and most of them work at AI companies anyway. Maybe there's something about our algorithmically manipulated psyche's in the modern age that draws people towards more absolutist all-or-nothing views, incapable of practical nuance when in the face of a potentially grave threat.

Re: Replacement.ai

#445

Post by ben_w »

nharada wrote: post #419

How come I never see any concrete proposals for how to equitably distribute the wealth of AI? It's always either "stop AI immediately for the sake of our labor" or "don't worry sometime in the future everyone will live in utopia probably". Here's a starter example: any company whose main business is training AI models needs must give up 10% of their company to a fund whose charter is long-term establishing basic care…

> How come I never see any concrete proposals for how to equitably distribute the wealth of AI?

Probably because most politics about how to "equitably distribute the wealth" of anything are one or both of "badly thought out" and/or "too complex to read".

For example of the former, I could easily say "have the government own the AI", which is great if you expect a government that owns AI to continue to care if their policies are supported by anyone living under them, not so much if you consider that a fully automated police force is able to stamp out any dissent etc.

For example of the latter, see all efforts to align any non-trivial AI to anything, literally even one thing, without someone messing up the reward function.

For your example of 10%, well, there's a dichotomy on how broad the AI is, if it's more like (it's not really boolean) a special-purpose system or if it's fully-general over all that any human can do:

• Special-purpose: that works but also you don't need it because it's just an assistant AI and "expands the pie" rather than displacing workers entirely.

• Fully-general: the AI company can relocate offshore, or off planet, do whatever it wants and raise a middle finger at you. It's got all the power and you don't.

Re: Replacement.ai

#446

Post by [deleted] »

zer00eyz wrote: post #343
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…

> Personal belief, but robots coming for your jobs is not a valid argument against robots. Replace the word robot with "automation" or "industrialization" and you have the last 200 years of human history covered. The Ludites could have won and we would all have 1500$ shirts. Do you know any lamp lighters? How about a town crier? We could still all be farming. Where are all the switch board operators? Where are all th…

[deleted]

Re: Replacement.ai

#447

Post by otterley »

nharada wrote: post #419

How come I never see any concrete proposals for how to equitably distribute the wealth of AI? It's always either "stop AI immediately for the sake of our labor" or "don't worry sometime in the future everyone will live in utopia probably". Here's a starter example: any company whose main business is training AI models needs must give up 10% of their company to a fund whose charter is long-term establishing basic care…

This is what taxation and wealth redistribution schemes are for. The problem is that Americans generally find this idea to be abhorrent, even though it would probably benefit most of the people who are against the principle. They don’t want a dime to go to people they feel are undeserving of it (“lazy” people, which is typically coded language to mean minorities and immigrants).

Re: Replacement.ai

#448

Post by onraglanroad »

EgregiousCube wrote: post #375
onraglanroad wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now from what you've said I think they might be right. You don't get a full contract that you sign that details your job, leave entitlement etc in the US?

We get that - it’s generally right there on the offer letter, often supplemented by a handbook that it refers to.

I don't get it. Do you sign an offer letter or a contract?

So the normal routine here is you get an offer, if you accept you get sent a contract which is signed by the employer, if it's all ok you also sign and then you get your start date. Is it different in the US or the same?

Re: Replacement.ai

#449

Post by defgeneric »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #149
garganzol wrote: post #118

It seems that some tech people are prone to ludditism. No wonders here, AI is sharper and brighter than most tech workers usually are. Instead of facing the new reality, some people start to talk about the bubbles, AI being sloppy, etc. Which is not generally true; mostly it's the users' psychological projection of their own traits and the resulting fear-induced smear campaigns. The phenomenon is well described in ps…

When people mention the Luddites, they almost always do so incorrectly as you have here. Luddites weren't afraid of technology because it was better than them. In fact, it was worse. There was no projection. The phenomenon you're describing here was not a Luddite phenomenon. They were concerned about how machines would disrupt employment, wages, product quality, work autonomy, power imbalances, and working conditions…

> How do I belong? How do I make my community a better place? How do I build wealth for the people I love?

What remains after is something like the social status games of the aristocratic class, which I suspect is why there's a race to accumulate as much as possible now before the means to do so evaporate.

Re: Replacement.ai

#450

Post by lucas_v »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #437
raincole wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually an extremely good analogy (but in the opposite way of what you imply), as you don't own your job or your wife. Banning AI for job security is like banning dildos because they make men feel insecure.

There's a difference in scale and potential consequences though What if there were some robot with superhuman persuasion and means of manipulating human urges such that, if it wanted to, it could entrap anyone it wanted to complete subservience? Should we happily acquiesce to the emerging cult-like influence these new entities have on susceptible humans? What if your parents messaged you one day, homeless on the stre…

> superhuman persuasion and means of manipulating human urges such that, if it wanted to, it could entrap anyone it wanted to complete subservience

Wow this potential/theoretical danger sounds a lot like the already existent attention economy; we're already manipulated at scale by "superhuman" algorithms designed to hijack our "human urges," create "cult-like" echo chambers, and sell us things 24/7. That future is already here

Post reply on HN