91–100 of 107 posts
So... the solution is basically "pay tax on the demand that you're destroying". We can all hate on the premise (ai is good enough to do this) and/or the solution presented (centrally enforced taxation), but you gotta admit: the messaging from SV's AI leaders about how "ai will take all your jobs" is confused as fuck, because if so, who will be on the consuming end of things?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t this more a function of how the American construction market is just really messed up somehow (corruption?)? In China, actual things get built fairly cheaply and quickly. You just don’t see workers hanging around watching one guy dig a hole like you do in the states. I would guess that automation is the only way out of the mess we are in, since just throwing more money and people at the problem just seems to ma…
Could you expand on the corruption claim?
The way I see OP: It's the Luddite Fallacy. Textile workers worried about machinery saying it's going to result in collapse of the economy when they lose their job. But every time there's a new technology that threatens some jobs because of an increase in efficiency but investment thus can be placed in other locations creating new jobs. different kinds of jobs. It's not different this time. Each time the luddite move…
Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. Your logic equates to "there will always be jobs for humans to do", which is naive. Remember that we're counting down in the number of things we do better than inorganic stuff. At some point our bodies (admittedly impressive when compared to other animals) will be surpassed in enough aspects that there isn't anything where we can provide enough value to…
>will be surpassed in enough aspects that there isn't anything where we can provide enough value to live off.
Regardless of that. AI is here to stay. Nobody is going to revoke the constitutions and criminalize AI to prevent this from happening.
What's going to happen will happen.
The trick is bypassing the human consumer as well. Companies satisfy (human) consumer needs as a byproduct of profit maximization. But human consumers are inefficient. They have to sleep, require medical care, etc. A purely machine economy would be far more efficient. Therefore in the limit we should eliminate reliance on human labor and consumption to build a more perfect and efficient world.
Idea! Maybe these now redundant humans can be turned into a kind of battery, so they serve as a source of energy for the machines? Perhaps it's then smart to make the humans have a brain/computer interface, to make then dream/think they are living in a normal society so they don't revolt.
Still looking for the AI in the room. Where is it exactly? Surely nobody is claiming LLMs are AI?
AI doesn't need to be AGI to be useful. Surely, you've tried Claude Code before and found it more helpful than Clippy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. Your logic equates to "there will always be jobs for humans to do", which is naive. Remember that we're counting down in the number of things we do better than inorganic stuff. At some point our bodies (admittedly impressive when compared to other animals) will be surpassed in enough aspects that there isn't anything where we can provide enough value to…
Thanks for the downvote. >will be surpassed in enough aspects that there isn't anything where we can provide enough value to live off. Regardless of that. AI is here to stay. Nobody is going to revoke the constitutions and criminalize AI to prevent this from happening. What's going to happen will happen.
I did not downvote you. I argued why your model of what the future will look like is wrong. That point still stands.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article is saying that the solution here isn’t to just throw up our hands and commit suicide as a nation, it’s to simply tax the AI, punishing the negative externality. Seems like the obvious answer to the prisoner’s dilemma problem where everyone wants to lay off their workforce, but expects that they’ll be the only ones to get this bright idea.
What’s a bit hard for me to rationalize here is why are market shifts considered a negative externality here? We didn’t tax moulding machines because they reduced the demand for sculptors. Don’t get me wrong, I think the end goal of “Tax those who can pay for it to build a social safety net” is reasonable, I just don’t buy the “negative externalities” argument.
AI isn't promising to be one machine, it's promising to be a general intelligence that could potentially send unemployment over 50%. We're talking about every truck driver, every warehouse worker, basically everyone who sits in front of a screen for a living being unemployed. This really changes things from 'social safety net' to 'prevent civil unrest that threatens continuity of government.'
The trick is bypassing the human consumer as well. Companies satisfy (human) consumer needs as a byproduct of profit maximization. But human consumers are inefficient. They have to sleep, require medical care, etc. A purely machine economy would be far more efficient. Therefore in the limit we should eliminate reliance on human labor and consumption to build a more perfect and efficient world.
You jest, but isn't this the logical conclusion? A sufficiently smart AGI has no need for humanity, at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. Your logic equates to "there will always be jobs for humans to do", which is naive. Remember that we're counting down in the number of things we do better than inorganic stuff. At some point our bodies (admittedly impressive when compared to other animals) will be surpassed in enough aspects that there isn't anything where we can provide enough value to…
Thanks for the downvote. >will be surpassed in enough aspects that there isn't anything where we can provide enough value to live off. Regardless of that. AI is here to stay. Nobody is going to revoke the constitutions and criminalize AI to prevent this from happening. What's going to happen will happen.
> What's going to happen will happen.
Username checks out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The humans consume to fulfill needs, how do those needs get fulfilled in a post human economy?
Large populations of humans not getting their basic needs fulfilled is a feature. That way, those who do have lots of resources get to have even more intense feelings of superiority and that of having high status. That is, after all, the point of wealth accumulation (at least a certain point where more money does not change your life quality meaningfully). For status, its the delta between you and others that matters…