Moore's Law for Everything • Hacker News Board

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#481

Post by simonh » Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 12:59 PM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #178

S_A_P wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a good take- Having things be better for horses was never the point of the economy. In fact horses were probably the main driver for developing mechanical solutions since horse ownership is expensive and time consuming. There was no incentive to make life/jobs better for horses, and as soon as a better replacement was available horses were not necessary for most people. So you cant swap out horses for…

But having things be better for humans was never the point of the economy either. The actual point has always been making things better for a subset of humans, everywhere throughout history. I don't see why an unemployable horse would be considered any differently from an unemployable human to the cold profit motive.

Until true modern style democracy yes, but in modern democracies the people get to decide how the country and the economy are run. Yes, really. The fact that the consensus view happens not to align with what some people (perhaps yourself included) seem to think it should doesn't make that not true.

Sometimes that leads to really unfortunate outcomes (in my view) like Trump and Brexit, but those things were the result of genuine democratic processes and driven by the choices of individual voters. That's true generally in the democratic world too.

It may be convenient to blame the state of the world on shadowy anti-democratic forces running things from the shadows, because that can be used to de-legitimise the current state of the democratic world, but I'm afraid that's self-delusion. This is the world we have chosen through a process of consensus and compromise.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#482

Post by jdmoreira » Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 1:02 PM UTC

dandare wrote: post #440

koonsolo wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have choices. They can work for another company, they can start their own business, they can go live in the forest and live off the land. People can do whatever they want. If they want to get money and work at a specific company, don't claim they are slaves. Amazon makes an offer: hey, if you work here you get X amount, and they accept. You can claim an employee is a tool for the company, but you can also clai…

Those choices will become illusions. > Work for another company -> compete for decreasing number of jobs with increasing number of candidates. > start their own business -> compete with everyone that is smarter than you and/or had a better starting position. > go live in the forest and live off the land -> this is called poverty.

I agree with you.

But I think there might be a way out:

Spend as little as possible and use all your extra cash to buy stocks. Not meme stocks of course but either an index fund or if you really trust your skill go ahead and pick stocks. If there is a wealth transfer you will be at least partially on the receiving end.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#483

Post by account42 » Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 1:05 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #408

bnralt wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's two distinct ideas being discussed. Can people be unemployed because of structural, societal, or political reasons? Sure, and I think most people would agree. We have plenty of example of that happening - depressions, recessions, mass refugees, etc. But can people be unemployed because we run out of things for humans to do? That's what the video is arguing, but it won't be the case unless we've fully…

People can be unemployed because there's nothing they can do that generates enough value to pay them enough to live on.

And if that happens to enough people they can simply decide that they should get their share of the robots' output. Hopefully more people will agree with that before then.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#484

Post by zarkov99 » Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 1:07 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #350

nindalf wrote: post #123

> We will discover new jobs–we always do after a technological revolution CGP grey put this well > Imagine a pair of horses in the early 1900s talking about technology. One worries all these new mechanical muscles (cars etc) will make horses unnecessary. The other horse reminds him that everything so far has made their lives easier - remember all that farm work? Remember running coast-to-coast delivering mail? Rememb…

This is a very misleading metaphor. Horses were not workers. The were tools workers used. Farmers used horses to plow the fields. Transport workers used them to transport goods and people. As those workers got better tools to plow and transport, productivity increased, society got richer. There are also millions of old telegraphs, slide rules, and rotary phones "unemployed" across the world. The fate of these no long…

It is not misleading at all. You cannot find a human example because there is none yet, just as there was none for horses right until we found a way to replace almost all their production with machines. There is likely nothing magic protecting human function from exactly the same fate. We can argue about the time scale, but it seems clear we are headed that way.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#485

Post by ben_w » Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 1:13 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #469

spoonjim wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guess what, 90% of humans are also tools that a small percentage of other humans use to accomplish their goals. Few people would argue that the job of “Amazon warehouse worker” is anything other than a tool for Jeff Bezos to become richer and more powerful. The person who has that job, from when they clock in to when they clock out, is functionally equivalent to a horse. Amazon software engineers are the same, they j…

As BurningFrog says, please find an actual human analogy. You can argue until your face is blue that this applies to humans, but if so you should be able to find an actual example. Meanwhile developed world economies are close to full employment and have many more vacant positions than unemployed people. We have a skills problem, not an unemployment problem.

An example would be “due to X, essentially all humans are unemployable, except as sources of entertainment for the rich, or as meat”. As this is also the conclusion, it can’t be used as an in-advance example for why the argument is or isn’t reasonable. (Inverse begging the question, I think? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#486

Post by naveen99 » Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 1:24 PM UTC

We already have a federal target of 2% inflation and a 20% capital gains tax, which add up to about a 2.5% wealth tax. Also, if the government starts owning shares in equities, they may as well pump and dump the share market directly like they do with bonds.

Also if you're going to design a utopia per country, why not just make it a global utopia, and model it for the 7 billion humans instead. Same for equality, model it for the global population instead of the 5% living in the usa.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#487

Post by account42 » Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 1:25 PM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #178

S_A_P wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a good take- Having things be better for horses was never the point of the economy. In fact horses were probably the main driver for developing mechanical solutions since horse ownership is expensive and time consuming. There was no incentive to make life/jobs better for horses, and as soon as a better replacement was available horses were not necessary for most people. So you cant swap out horses for…

But having things be better for humans was never the point of the economy either. The actual point has always been making things better for a subset of humans, everywhere throughout history. I don't see why an unemployable horse would be considered any differently from an unemployable human to the cold profit motive.

The difference is that if there are enough unemployable humans they can vote, rebel or otherwise enforce that they get a share of the profit. Horses did not have that option.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#488

Post by simonh » Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 1:26 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #485

simonh wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As BurningFrog says, please find an actual human analogy. You can argue until your face is blue that this applies to humans, but if so you should be able to find an actual example. Meanwhile developed world economies are close to full employment and have many more vacant positions than unemployed people. We have a skills problem, not an unemployment problem.

An example would be “due to X, essentially all humans are unemployable, except as sources of entertainment for the rich, or as meat”. As this is also the conclusion, it can’t be used as an in-advance example for why the argument is or isn’t reasonable. (Inverse begging the question, I think? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question )

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#489

Post by ben_w » Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 1:41 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #488

ben_w wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An example would be “due to X, essentially all humans are unemployable, except as sources of entertainment for the rich, or as meat”. As this is also the conclusion, it can’t be used as an in-advance example for why the argument is or isn’t reasonable. (Inverse begging the question, I think? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question )

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say.

I’m saying “if so you should be able to find an actual example.” is false.

CGP Grey argued (paraphrased) “if X happens in the future, Y will be like Z”, you are arguing that Y will never be like Z in the future because Y is not currently like Z.

Re: Moore's Law for Everything

#490

Post by NiceWayToDoIT » Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 2:00 PM UTC

This is a story about a billionaire who imagines a rosy future full of unicorns and rainbows. What is the point of more wealth created by AI or magic genie from the lamp when it will end up in the pockets of the same people as always? Even now, there is plenty of wealth, but it is concentrated in 0.01% of the population.

So, there is a straightforward question for Sam, why don't you give up your wealth now, same as all billionaires worldwide?

So spare me of the long rich guy "moral" story, answer is simple neither Sam or any billionaire around the world will. As usually when they do they do it through tax loophole relieves schemes, their money will never get to those who actually may contribute to this world if they could just free their time from the rat race.

So, when stronger AI comes online, there will be no fairness. All the immense riches will go to the same minority - that same minority or wealthy people will not give away as they will as always think that they are entitled to it. Same as Elon Musk believes that Tesla currently has a "fair" valuation.

... Fairness is a tricky word; it depends on the head, which is pronouncing it ...