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

561–570 of 725 posts

Re: Replacement.ai

#561

Post by klipt »

Ghexor wrote: post #519
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.

I see female sexrobots as a symptom, a manifestation of the male gaze. I've heard personal histories of being courted and finding the guy was out for sexual gratification and didn't much care for her life-perspective. A justified anger there, I think, at a culture that perpetuates and celebrates this form of relating. Insecurity, I suspect, befalls more prominently the indoctrinated women that are catering to male ex…

The irony is that many of the people criticizing female sex bots would welcome male sex bots as "liberating", which shows you they don't have any consistent ideology, outside of a selfish ideology that what benefits them is good even if it hurts others, and what hurts them is bad even if it benefits others.

Re: Replacement.ai

#562

Post by gnarlouse »

jayd16 wrote: post #295
gnarlouse wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What market? If this shocks employment numbers what can happen other than market collapse?

I don't think it's a short term thing, but in the short term, yes you're exactly right.

But what are the minimum inputs necessary to build self-sustaining robotic workforce of machines that can (1) produce more power (2) produce more robots (3) produce food. The specifics of what exactly is necessary--which inputs, which production goals--is debatable. But imagine some point where a billionaire like Elon has the minimum covered to keep a mini space-x running, or a mini optimus factory running, a mini solar-city running.

At this point, it's perfectly acceptable to crash the economy, and leave them to their own devices. If they survive, fine. If they don't, also fine. The minimum kernel necessary to let the best of mankind march off and explore the solar system is secure.

Obviously, this is an extreme, and the whole trajectory is differential. But in general, if I were a billionaire, I'd be thinking "8 billion people is a whole lot of mouths to feed, and a whole lot of carbon footprint to worry about. Is 8 billion people (most of whom lack a solid education) a luxury liability?"

I really just don't believe that most people are going to make it to "the singularity" if there even is such a thing. Just more of the same of humanity: barbaric bullshit, one group of humans trying to control another group of humans.

Re: Replacement.ai

#563

Post by techblueberry »

TechSquidTV wrote: post #86

Personal 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…

We just keep moving forward, no one responsible, no one accountable, victims of our own progress.

Re: Replacement.ai

#564

Post by IgorPartola »

Let’s take this to its logical limit: imagine that AI gets so good that it can replace a lot of jobs en masse. The most popular job in about half of the US is truck drivers, and in the states where it is teachers, truck drivers are number 2. Let’s say we do get to not only self-driving trucks but self-driving trucks loaded by robotic warehouse workers. Let’s postulate that this becomes the norm and let’s say that along with robotic truck drivers and warehouse workers, we also get robotic cashier, road work crews, and so on. I am not giving a timeline here, but let’s explore what happens when we get to 30% unemployment. Then 40%, 50%, 80%.

Sure we will have the robot wrangler engineers, scientists, teachers, nurses, etc. But typically we have social unrest past like 8% unemployment. What happens when double digits of people have no jobs and all the time on their hands? Well “eat the rich” might become very literal and no amount of protection against that can really be bought. Ultimately, the only option is either a Dune-style elimination of all AI (very unlikely) or we will have to decouple “living wage income” from “job”. If you think about it, the idea that you must have a job in order to make money is more of an implementation detail. If robots produce so much value that it is actively not even viable for humans to work, the only real logical solution is to distribute the profits from the labor of the robots in a way that isn’t by hourly rate times hours worked. In fact one possible way to do this is to tax the value produced by AI and then funnel that to a universal basic income program. Everyone by default is an artist. If you want to be a nurse or teacher or scientist or engineer you can. Otherwise just produce art at your leisure while the robots work the fields and cook your meals.

Re: Replacement.ai

#565

Post by EgregiousCube »

onraglanroad wrote: post #448
EgregiousCube wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We get that - it’s generally right there on the offer letter, often supplemented by a handbook that it refers to.

I don't get it. Do you sign an offer letter or a contract? So the normal routine here is you get an offer, if you accept you get sent a contract which is signed by the employer, if it's all ok you also sign and then you get your start date. Is it different in the US or the same?

An offer becomes a contract once accepted - this is afaik consistent across the entire (western?) world.

It’s perhaps customary in some places to have additional paperwork in the negotiation phase?

Re: Replacement.ai

#566

Post by pharos92 »

TechSquidTV wrote: post #86

Personal 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…

You wont have that opinion when its your job, life and freedom.

Re: Replacement.ai

#567

Post by mondrian »

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…

Bernie Sanders talks about a "robot tax" that is roughly what you're talking about. https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-robot-tax-ai-...

Re: Replacement.ai

#569

Post by GTP »

visarga wrote: post #472
beeflet wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think the point here is that a lot of automation still requires "real-world" components (read: hardware). E.g. robots, factories with said robots and so on. So you being able to run LLMs on your PC is still not going to put big factories owned by big companies out of business.

Re: Replacement.ai

#570

Post by wubrr »

IgorPartola wrote: post #564

Let’s take this to its logical limit: imagine that AI gets so good that it can replace a lot of jobs en masse. The most popular job in about half of the US is truck drivers, and in the states where it is teachers, truck drivers are number 2. Let’s say we do get to not only self-driving trucks but self-driving trucks loaded by robotic warehouse workers. Let’s postulate that this becomes the norm and let’s say that alo…

I think it's inevitable that most jobs will be eventually automated away (even without AI), and that's going to come with major class struggle and restructuring of society.
Post reply on HN