51–53 of 53 posts
Noah's post always remind me of this quote: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."
I think offering your opinion on a subject and being disproved is a very healthy way of learning about it. Having a conversation should be the norm
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Too many unknowns to be predictable. We've got loads of machine labour already, we don't yet plug AI into it everywhere because humans are much better at avoiding accidents (not immune, but much better). Get AI good enough, the mining equipment, the delivery trucks, the factories, can all be fully automated (bits of each already are). You're now limited by how fast (and how far) your robotic workforce can increase it…
> humans are much better at avoiding accidents (not immune, but much better) Are they, really, or is it a question of liability? If we could "lease" AI drivers, allowing companies to defray liability while still not paying unreliable humans, they'd do it. But then the owners of the AI leasing companies wouldn't have anywhere to hide from lawsuits. Being able to blame and fire an individual human for what is really a…
This suggests that we'll probably be at the right level for cars in 5 years: https://www2.deloitte.com/xe/en/insights/industry/financial-...
My personal best guess is that it will take a further 5-10 years past the point where no-steering-wheel-included self-driving cars are a thing for the electrical power requirements of AI to reduce from something you can fit in a car to something you can fit into an android.
As someone misread me last time I said this, that's not 5-10 years from today, it's 5-10 years gap between two things we don't yet have.
> Being able to blame and fire an individual human for what is really a systemic problem is a huge win for companies.
I disagree. In the UK at least you need public liability insurance for basically all business functions (rent a town hall for an afternoon? They want to see your insurance certificate). Even if those insurance people ultimately sue some individual to recover costs, even if that bankrupts the individual and the court orders their wages garnished for the rest of their lives, it's very easy for someone to cause damages exceeding their lifetime earnings — a single accidental death can cause such damages all by itself, though the most common cause of this, driving, generally doesn't come with such harsh penalties on the human responsible.
There’s another reason AI won’t eliminate jobs. People like to hire people who are like them (also who like them, and who they like). The only people who AIs are like are AI engineers (more broadly, engineers, scientists, etc). For an AI engineer “hiring” an AI is natural. Nearly every other normal person on the planet would rather hire another person they can easily relate to, regardless of that person’s comparative…
sometimes you just don’t have any social energy battery life left, and just want a drink from a vending machine instead of making small talk with the cute barista that you have no chance with. The barista could be an ax murderer. They could be a really toxic person to even have to interact with. Not everyone wants to put up with that, even if they look like us, we sympathize and empathize that they’re grumpy because…