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

481–490 of 725 posts

Re: Replacement.ai

#481

Post by bofadeez »

anonym29 wrote: post #469
klipt wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not limited to men. A lot of feminists are also vocally against the idea of female sex bots because it makes them feel insecure.

Any idea why a bipedal fleshlight makes them insecure? My head jumps to "could it because they fear that without sex, they have no value?" but that sounds so ridiculous to me. All human life matters, has value, and should be treated with kindness, respect, and dignity. I've met plenty of women who add value to the world in a bajillion other ways. Can someone help me understand this one?

[flagged]

Re: Replacement.ai

#482

Post by skybrian »

gnarlouse wrote: post #165
skybrian wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

Can't find it now, but I read an article about someone adding AI help to a large appliance. Can't assume WiFi is set up, so it has to work offline. Frontier model not required.

I don't think we will be building these things ourselves, but I think there will still be products you can just buy and then they're yours.

It would be the opposite of the "Internet of things" trend though.

Re: Replacement.ai

#483

Post by anon7725 »

brainwad wrote: post #400
merth wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We invent machines to free ourselves from labour, yet we’ve built an economy where freedom from labour means losing your livelihood.

Average hours worked is more or less monotonically decreasing since the start of the industrial revolution, so in the long run we are slowly freeing ourselves. But in the short run, people keep working because a) machines usually are complementary to labour (there are still coal miners today, they are just way more productive) and b) even if some jobs are completely eliminated by machines (ice making, for example), t…

Are average hours worked decreasing because we have more abundance and less need to work, or are they decreasing because the distribution of work is changing?

I find it hard to accept your claim because at the start of the industrial revolution there were far fewer women in the formal labor market than there are today.

Re: Replacement.ai

#484

Post by KaiserPro »

kwar13 wrote: post #260

Agriculture used to be more than 50% of ALL employment in the USA. Now it's barely 2%. Ever wondered why? I understand the spirit of this, but most of this alarmism is misguided in my view.

> Now it's barely 2%. Ever wondered why?

Mechanisation

But did you ever wonder what happened to the displaced workers? I'm not an expert on the agricultural changes in the USA, but in the UK, huge amount of tumult can be directly attributed to agricultural changes.

Re: Replacement.ai

#485

Post by ArcHound »

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…

Why would the AI owners want to distribute wealth equitably? They want to get rich.

What government in the foreseeable future would go after them? This would tank the US economy massively, so not US. The EU will try and regulate, but won't have enough teeth. Are we counting on China as the paragon of welfare for citizens?

I propose we let the economy crash, touch some grass and try again. Source: I am not an economist.

Re: Replacement.ai

#486

Post by ben_w »

beeflet wrote: post #352
devolving-dev wrote: post #326

I've never really been convinced that robots or AI replacing humans is a real problem. Because why would they do that? If I had an army of super intelligent robots, I would have them waiting on me and fulfilling my every whim. I wouldn't send them off to silicon valley to take all of the programming jobs or something like that. You might say: "but you'll need money!". Why would I need money? The robots can provide my…

In this hypothetical, let's say I also have an army of super-intelligent robots, and I tell them to grow and multiply endlessly and to take over the world. Then it doesn't matter what you think. The benign forms of superintelligence shaken out by non-benign forms. >Another way to think about it is that if all of the jobs were replaced by AI, us leftover jobless humans would create a new economy just trying to grow fo…

> On whose land?

Good point.

> In any case, it will be cheaper to buy food from the AI.

Only if the humans had any money with which to buy it, but humans in the secondary economy would rapidly have no token of currency that the AI would recognise for the purpose of trade.

Re: Replacement.ai

#487

Post by rpcope1 »

thelastgallon wrote: post #321
everdrive wrote: post #171

[flagged]

The missing piece is the material science advances to get the 100% fidelity mouth/etc feel. Once we have that breakthrough, all men will just buy those devices (and video games) and chill. No need for any of these questionable biological services (marriage, etc) with no guarantee and a whole lot of heartache. Any company that solves this problem will be a $10T company.

That will also likely be the very end of our society as we know it. If you thought TFR was in the shitter today, having robot prostitutes (because let's be real, that's what you're suggesting) will not only probably grant a select few some unreal control over many, but will be the end of any society dumb enough to permit it entirely.

Re: Replacement.ai

#488

Post by idreyn »

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 sounds a lot like a sovereign wealth fund. The government obtains fractional ownership over large enterprises (this can happen through market mechanisms or populist strongarming — choose your own adventure) and pours the profits on these investments into the social safety net or even citizens' dividends.

For this to work at scale domestically, the fund would need to be a double-digit percentage of the market cap of the entire US economy. It would be a pretty drastic departure from the way we do things now. There would be downsides: market distortions and fraud and capital flight.

But in my mind it would be a solution to the problem of wealth pooling up in the AI economy, and probably also a balm for the "pyramid scheme" aspect of Social Security which captures economic growth through payroll taxes (more people making more money, year on year) in a century where we expect the national population to peak and decline.

Pick your poison, I guess, but I want to see more discussion of this idea in the Overton window.

Re: Replacement.ai

#489

Post by anon7725 »

brandensilva wrote: post #457
fainpul wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We invent machines to free ourselves from labour That's a very romantic view. The development, production and use of machines to replace labour is driven by employers to produce more efficiently, to gain an edge and make more money.

I would hope that people realize that money in itself is merely digits on a computer and that the real power of this stuff belongs to the people since the AI inherited and learned from us. I know that's a simplification but we uphold this contract that controls us. The people get to decide how this plays out and as much as I'm hopeful we excel into a world that is more like star trek, that skips over the ugly transit…

Our moral and political development severely lags our technological development. I have very little confidence that it will ever catch up. Looking back over the post-WW2 era, we have seen improvements (civil rights, recognition of past injustices, expansion of medical care in many countries) but also serious systemic regressions (failure to take climate change seriously, retreat to parochial revenge-based politics, failure to adequately fund society's needs, capture of politics and law by elites).

My main concern about AI is not any kind of extinction scenario but just the basic fact that we are not prepared to address the likely externalities that result from it because we're just historically terrible at addressing externalities.

Re: Replacement.ai

#490

Post by raincole »

anonym29 wrote: post #469
klipt wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not limited to men. A lot of feminists are also vocally against the idea of female sex bots because it makes them feel insecure.

Any idea why a bipedal fleshlight makes them insecure? My head jumps to "could it because they fear that without sex, they have no value?" but that sounds so ridiculous to me. All human life matters, has value, and should be treated with kindness, respect, and dignity. I've met plenty of women who add value to the world in a bajillion other ways. Can someone help me understand this one?

> All human life matters, has value, and should be treated with kindness, respect, and dignity

This is reasoning.

However people don't always act based on reasoning.

And even if you act based on reasoning, you can't trust others to act based on the same kind of reasoning.

---

If a more serious response, (some) feminists see sex robots as objectification of women and that's why they're against them.

Post reply on HN