611–620 of 678 posts
Maybe a weird question, but how does a capitalist economy work where AGI-performed-labor is categorically less expensive than human-performed labor? Do most people who labor for wages just go unemployed, and then bankrupt, and then die?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no killer app (yet). Chat is nice and there's various tools that are useful to devs. But broadly, there is no killer app that makes _everyone_ adopt it and gladly pay for it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_application
Yea same with Google. I mean search is nice. But broadly there’s no killer app that makes _everyone_ gladly pay for it. Jury is still out on whether they’ll be able to subsidize those massive server costs of indexing the entire web.
You offer some counter example, but do not address my actual point - there is no killer app.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A conversation like this happens every minute between investors, people who work at hedge funds, trader types, bookies, people who work in cat insurance etc. They just think this way. They are "priors" in Bayes world. Based on intuition. Notice the lack of precision. Nobody says "50%" or "10%" to sound scientific. I'm 99.9% certain it's better than using ambiguous terms "likely", "probably", "certainly possible" and…
I like to use the the 0.1% cya too, but that makes you sound 99.9% less sure.
dumb question - in one of the emails they mention ICO. What is that? > I have considered the ICO approach and will not support it. ... > I respect your decision on the ICO idea Pretty sure they aren't talking about Initial Coin Offerings. Any clue what they mean?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use it for cooking, proofreading, learning German, skimming long documents, shopping advice (by uploading photos), and asking dumb questions about physics that get me [closed] if I were to post on physics stack exchange, in addition to being a coding assistant.
Most of those existed before llms. Also still like a microwave, not very essential.
You can't get a useful response from German for Dummies if you ask it to rate the email you're writing in German and let you know what needs improvement, human teachers who can are expensive, and friends may not wish to be constantly bothered by a 40 year old asking the kinds of questions a native speaker might have asked their teacher when they were 13.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not the op. If you reread what he wrote I think he’s trying to say the price going down changes the viability of the option—not the convenience and speed which he treats as inherent to the car. Said another way: When price goes down, robotaxis (which are convenient and speedy) become a more viable option.
Thanks, that reading looks plausible :)
Maybe a weird question, but how does a capitalist economy work where AGI-performed-labor is categorically less expensive than human-performed labor? Do most people who labor for wages just go unemployed, and then bankrupt, and then die?
And also if everyone is out of job and no money, who is buying the products made by robots?
If all the money ends up in one place, from one single person to an entire group, if they have no need to spend any of it ever because the robots they control will make everything for them, then the rest invent a replacement currency and contine their own disconnected economy without the results of the automation.
But the very fact that some person or group is capable of hoarding all the money because they no longer need to spend it, means they have no real reason to care if it's taken away or diluted by government orders for "inflationary" (in this case more like "anti-deflationary") money printing.
How well that new economy works for those without automation is difficult to guess and depends on what real resources (if any, currency in the abstract doesn't count but precious metals might) get monopolised by those with automation, though the transition to it would likely be disruptive.
But that disconnect only happens when the robots can, amongst other things, make more robots (if robots can't do that then humans get paid to make robots), at which point money as we use it today stops being relevant — if I had such automation, it stops mattering to me if my tenants pay rent or not, irregardless of if they have that automation themselves, and I can tell a robot to make another robot and then give it to my tenant without meaningful loss to myself.
Maybe a weird question, but how does a capitalist economy work where AGI-performed-labor is categorically less expensive than human-performed labor? Do most people who labor for wages just go unemployed, and then bankrupt, and then die?
There are essentially two answers to this question, and neither are in the interests of capital so there will never be progress if power toward them until forced. The first is the bill gates "income tax for robots" idea which does a kind of hand wavey thing figuring out how to calculate a robot, how the government will distribute taxes, etc. That one is a mess impossible to get support for and nearly impossible to tr…
The only solution I can come up with to this conundrum is if the output of the AGI is provided for free to people so the value is captured directly without the intermediating commercial steps. However, there will still be friction in this process (in the form of physical inputs) so I don't see how this is a long term sustainable approach.
Good thing I don't believe in AGI so this is, at best, a philosophical debate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It’s better at search than Google in what world? what it's good at is suggesting things to search, because half of what it outputs is incorrect, so you have to verify everything anyway it does, slightly, improve search, but it's an addition, not a replacement.
Two years ago half of what it output was incorrect. One year ago, maybe 30% of what it output was incorrect. Currently, maybe 20% of what it tells you is incorrect. It's getting better. Google, on the other hand, is unequivocally getting worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And they intend to "determine the fate of the world". As such, communication shouldn't be American centric.
You're several decades late for that. Almost a century now.