How did this get so many points?
"Am I interested to see what HN thinks about this?" If the answer is yes, I upvote the post. The article itself might be junk, but that's irrelevant.
AI Won't Cause Unemployment
71–80 of 362 posts
Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment
#72Patrick Boyle has a vastly better new video on exactly the same topic: https://youtu.be/_iMItrc0ChU
Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no special love for this guy as he said some stuff that pissed me off in the past, but what is your specific argument against this post right here? > Hospital services? AI is clearly going to be involved, at least in things like radiology This is very far from the main point: accuracy of the claim that AI will wipe out (in this case health-related) jobs (and/or make health-related services cheaper). "involved"…
> This is very far from the main point: accuracy of the claim that AI will wipe out (in this case health-related) jobs (and/or make health-related services cheaper). "involved" here is so vague as to be meaningless. Let me rephrase: AI is better at human beings at the sort of pattern-matching work that radiology entails, so the majority of radiologists will be unemployed (I'll say in 20 years, if you want to check ba…
> ...AI will give everyone a completely knowledgeable, fully personalized tutor.
I want to see a GPT-based implementation of A Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer-like open world that constantly teaches. We have a lot of the precursors needed to attempt it and give it a shot.
Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment
#74Stopped reading after the patently false “communist inspired universal basic income”. A casual knowledge of the topic would lead one to understand it’s a capitalist, Milton Friedman inspired, idea.
Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment
#75What an incredibly, idiotically reductionist interpretation of cherry-picked data this is. First of all, he selected a fairly random, non-representative set of goods and services. I can immediately think of a glaringly obvious counter-example that his dataset excludes: energy. It's one of the most highly regulated industries in the US and yet energy inflation has been barely positive over the last 20 years ( https://…
His interpretation of “industries that are allowed to innovate vs those where it’s illegal” is laughable. Has Marc considered that there might be some other fundamental difference between the inflation-positive sectors of health, education, food and housing, vs the inflation-negative ones of TVs, cars and software subscriptions? I’ll give you a hint Marc: some of these are essential to life and society and some are n…
They're not though - the regulations keep getting stricter. Housing (building), for instance is expensive because the requirements tighten to match what people can afford. Remember when single glazed windows were legal? 2000 standard healthcare would probably be cheaper today if we were allowed to use it. But now we have newer more expensive (and better) treatments. Cars go like that too with safety growing.
Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment
#76I can't help but think Andreesen's gone off the deep end a bit, especially after he started gushing over Adam Neumann's second run at a real estate company (“We think it is natural that for his first venture since WeWork, Adam returns to the theme of connecting people through transforming their physical spaces and building communities where people spend the most time: their homes.”). > AI is simply already illegal ac…
Yeah, his whole post is thinly veiled anti-regulations blather. I suppose it’s a nice break from his web3 nonsense and his deranged anti-“woke” posting.
The best part of capitalism is “the cream floats to the top.”
Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is very far from the main point: accuracy of the claim that AI will wipe out (in this case health-related) jobs (and/or make health-related services cheaper). "involved" here is so vague as to be meaningless. Let me rephrase: AI is better at human beings at the sort of pattern-matching work that radiology entails, so the majority of radiologists will be unemployed (I'll say in 20 years, if you want to check ba…
> ...AI will give everyone a completely knowledgeable, fully personalized tutor. I want to see a GPT-based implementation of A Young Lady’s Illustrated Primer -like open world that constantly teaches. We have a lot of the precursors needed to attempt it and give it a shot.
This is my life long dream. To get to work on gen1 of something like this.
In place of paid mechanical Turk tutors I want to create an epistemological engine consisting of 3 main things: an inventory system of composable pieces of collected knowledge about the game world, a set of story writing design tools to create vignettes and connect pieces of narrative… a kind of narrative procedural generation system, and finally a set of original ui elements to showcase how the “knowbits” can be used to interact with the games narrative. AI will be used for character actors.
Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment
#78I can't help but think Andreesen's gone off the deep end a bit, especially after he started gushing over Adam Neumann's second run at a real estate company (“We think it is natural that for his first venture since WeWork, Adam returns to the theme of connecting people through transforming their physical spaces and building communities where people spend the most time: their homes.”). > AI is simply already illegal ac…
[dead]
Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this different from previous leaps in industrialization or technological innovation? If you make widgets worse than a machine in a factory then your labor is worthless.
We moved from farming and digging ditch to offices where we think for a living. But tell me, what is left after physical labor and thinking? Sex work? I don't think most of us are cut out for that. And with AI taking on creative work it won't be long before someone makes a Cherry 2000.
[dead]
Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment
#80Disagree. AI will cause mass unemployment because it’s way more efficient than a human, doesn’t get sick (relatively less than humans) and costs less. Simple economics. I’ll give you one example. The checkout counters in supermarkets, if the supermarkets would have hired young people on those positions not only we might have less young people going towards drugs and hooliganism but it would have also made them better…
When capitalism gets to the point that it has rid itself of consumers, I fear it means it will get 'rid' of consumers.