Correct, which is why we will have the first worldwide revolution as people realize their democracies are fake, they are simply enslaved by capitalists; which is exactly what they told us Commies would do.
The chances of all of those revolutions not touching off world war 3 and decimating infrastructure and trade to the point that we can’t produce the chips to run AI is what now?
Very low. I didn't say French Revolution. Political swing away from capitalism towards socialism.
Think hard about this. Does that seem to you like it's likely to be a physical law? First of all, it's not necessary for one person to build that super-intelligence all by themselves, or to understand it fully. It can be developed by a team, each of whom understands only a small part of the whole. Secondly, it doesn't necessarily even require anybody to understand it. The way AI models are built today is by pressing…
> Think hard about this. Does that seem to you like it's likely to be a physical law? Yes, it seems likely to me. It seems like the ultimate in hubris to assume we are capable of creating something we are not capable of ourselves.
Well your great great ... great grandfather was a fish. So the universe is clearly fine with gradual intelligence increments. So all we need to do is make an AI that itself can make an AI that is slightly smarter than itself.
> You are in danger. Unless you estimate the odds of a breakthrough at It's not the odds of the breakthrough, but the timeline. A factory worker could have correctly seen that one day automation would replace him, and yet worked his entire career in that role. There have been a ton of predictions about software engineers, radiologists, and some other roles getting replaced in months. Those predictions have clearly be…
We are the French artisans being replaced by English factories. OpenAI and its employees are the factory.
That has little to do with what I wrote, and isn't addressing the central issue.
The chances of all of those revolutions not touching off world war 3 and decimating infrastructure and trade to the point that we can’t produce the chips to run AI is what now?
Very low. I didn't say French Revolution. Political swing away from capitalism towards socialism.
You said “the fist world wide revolution”, which implies a bit more than a swing toward socialism.
My guess is we have a low chance of peacefully transitioning to socialism if we lose 40% of jobs in under a decade.
Someone is going to take advantage of that the way Hitler did.
In my mind we will have a bimodal set of skills in software development, likely something like a product engineer (an engineer who is also a product manager-- this person conceptualizes features and systemically considers the software as a whole in terms of ergonomics, business sense, and the delight in building something used by others) and something like a deep-in-the-weeds engineer (an engineer who innovates on th…
Can I take a guess that you believe you will speciate into the former?
Actually, ideally I'd love to dig deep into and specialize in database management systems internals. I think data engineering in general is the underspoken but fundamental necessity to any sort of application, AI or otherwise, but especially any concept of a data warehouse.
You don't need AI to replace whole jobs 1:1 to have massive displacement. If AI can do 80% of your tasks but fails miserably on the remaining 20%, that doesn't mean your job is safe. It means that 80% of the people in your department can be fired and the remaining 20% handle the parts the AI can't do yet.
Why do people make arguments like this? "Work" isn't a finite thing. It's not like all the people in your office today had to complete 100% of their tasks, and all of them did. "Work" is not a static thing. At least not in positions of many knowledge-worker careers. The idea of a single day's unit of "work" being 100%, is really sophomoric. Also, If 100% of a labor force now has 80% more time...wouldn't it behoove th…
I don’t know if we can assume that humans will always be a value add. It’s very possible that for many thing in the medium term, putting humans in the loop will be a net negative on productivity.
I'm not saying any of that I am just saying that you and everyone you love will be killed by this technology and the world as we know it will be destroyed.
Why do you think humans automating more things destroys us? Did the calculator or horse and buggy make us obsolete? Why didn't the Internet cause a massive death plague?
Because they didn't completely automate all labor. Your frog is boiling, and extrapolating that his hot tub will continue to become increasingly comfortable.
> Having someone work themselves to a bone with no real hopes of retirement, so you can have other people live a much easier life than they are. But isn't the real problem that the janitor isn't being paid enough to save for retirement _and_ pay a 'fair' share of taxes? I read about the fear and complaints of high taxes to pay for the lazy, but the actual tax load on countries with strong socialist policies is not re…
> I read about the fear and complaints of high taxes to pay for the lazy, but the actual tax load on countries with strong socialist policies is not really all that much higher than in the U.S. Many of these countries are going through the start of a lot of social upheaval in part due to these tax loads paying for social benefits that are simply not sustainable from a demographic perspective. There is an undercurrent…
Yes, I certainly don't think taxing the richer is the only dial available. that was my point about the problem being the wages - the labor or non-capital portion of the pie is one of the key things that needs to be adjusted. But the entire system is designed to reward the risk takers. I don't really have any answers. I'm just naively hoping that the the real wealth that technology creates (real-world efficiencies) can somehow benefit everyone, not only the risk takers. That's one of the scarier parts of the AI and robotics boom - it seems virtually all of the benefits are going in one direction. I know we've seen this type of thing before with the industrial revolution, and we somehow got to a point where most of us really did benefit with higher living standards (including the poorest) but it hard seeing most of the really rich ones not doing much to balance that out (most trying their hardest to keep the scales unbalanced).
I don't worry about it because worrying about it just seems like a waste of time and an unproductive, negative way to think about things. Instead I spend my time and thought not in worry but in adapting to the changing landscape.
You don’t spend all your time doomscrolling X? :) Glad to know there’s others out there.
I don't use any of that social networking stuff. Never seemed that interesting or worth my time. The closest I get to social networks is reddit and this, and forums. But even on reddit I just look at a few subreddits related to my hobbies.