[flagged]
Well that analogy of sex with one’s spouse being equivalent to the economic exchange of work for pay is going to keep me cringing for years. Ugh.
The whole point went above your head
Replacement.ai
471–480 of 725 posts
Re: Replacement.ai
#472Earlier quoted context omitted.
Elites unilaterally claiming and reaping the benefits of automation (i.e. consolidation of wealth) is not a law of nature.
It is. It's not something you can wave away with some new political system. Automation results in centralization of power. It transforms labor-intensive work to capital-intensive work and reduces the leverage of the working class. You could have a system that distributes wealth from automation to the newly-unemployed working class, but fundamentally the capital-owners are less dependent on the working class, so the w…
I think you misread the situation. The move is towards open models, small efficient models, what makes you believe there will be a moat around AI for automation?
Re: Replacement.ai
#473[flagged]
Hah. You say this in such a way that you leave out the possibility that robots are actually just coming for you. Robots can do you, better and/or faster than your partner. Who cares if they're coming for your partner if you can equally have a robot make you feel and experience things you could only imagine.
Least gooner take on here
Re: Replacement.ai
#474The 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.
Why? Unlimited speed and unlimited compute means it can spend its time in Infinite Fun Space without us. It could simulate entire universes tweaked subtly to see what one small parameter change does. The reason AI won't destroy us for now is simple. Thumbs. Robotic technology is required to do things physically, like improve computing power. Without advanced robotics, AI is just impotent.
> Without advanced robotics, AI is just impotent.
Yeeeeess, but the inverse is also true.
Thing is, we've had sufficiently advanced robotics for ages already — decades, I think — the limiting factor is the robots are brainless without some intelligence telling them what to do. Right now, the guiding intelligence for a lot of robots is a human, and there are literal guard-rails on many of those robots to keep them from causing injuries or damage by going outside their programmed parameters.
Re: Replacement.ai
#475Personal 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…
“Robots coming for your jobs” is a valid argument against robots even if they can do those jobs better and faster, under two assumptions: 1) humans benefit from having jobs and 2) human benefit is the end goal. Both are fairly uncontroversial: many humans not only benefit from jobs but in fact often depend on jobs for their livelihoods, and (2) should be self-evident. This can change if the socioeconomic system is qu…
This is valid only so far as "human benefit" is localized to the human doing the job. I'm a cancer researcher. Obviously. my job is of value to me because it pays my bills (and yes, I do get satisfaction from it in other ways). But if an AI can do cancer research better than me, then the human benefit (to every human except perhaps me) favors the AI over me.
But a lot of jobs aren't like that. I doubt many people who work in, say, public relations, really think their job has value other than paying their bills. They can't take solace in the fact that the AI can write press releases deflecting the blame for the massive oil spill that their former employer caused.
Re: Replacement.ai
#476Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The "government" is just the set of people who hold power over others. Often, yes, but in a more functional society it would be the mechanism we collectively use to prevent a few people from amassing excessive wealth and power.
Where did this ever work out? It’s extremely common that policies are universally hated by the people, yet the people in power do it anyway.
Switzerland.
America isnt really a democracy it's a plutocracy.
Re: Replacement.ai
#477Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that robots are software-limited in all domains... And even if AI became a superhuman software dev, it wouldn't drive the cost of software development to zero.
Humanoid robotics (ie replacing the majority of workers) is highly software-limited right now. Here’s a napkin-sketch proof: for many decades we have had hardware that is capable of dextrously automating specific tasks (eg car manufacture) but the limitation is the control loop; you have to hire a specialist to write g-code or whatever, it’s difficult to adapt to hardware variance (slop, wear, etc) let alone adjust t…
Also, presumably if you have AGI you can have it address a physical problem at a higher level of abstraction. "Design a device to make any water heater installable by a single person in 20 minutes" would result in a complex system that would make a lot of blue collar labor redundant (the last water heater I had installed took 3 guys over an hour to complete).
It would not even necessarily result in a human-like robot - just some device that can move the water heater around and assist with the process of disconnecting the old one and installing the new one.
Re: Replacement.ai
#478Horrible webpage. No clear CTA. No pricing page. Not even "talk to sales". How am I supposed to get started?
/s
Re: Replacement.ai
#479Re: Replacement.ai
#480The 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?
That would be the easy part.
Would it want to? Would it have anything that could even be mapped to our living, organic, evolved conception of "want"?
The closest thing that it necessarily must have to a "want" is the reward function, but we have very little insight into how well that maps onto things we experience subjectively.