Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I wish GPT4 had never happened

chaudhry.notion.site

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

931–940 of 1001 posts

Re: I wish GPT4 had never happened

#931

Post by tarsinge »

kazinator wrote: post #925
tarsinge wrote: post #912

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better distribution is through capital tax, not income tax. Taxing workers even more is the opposite of sharing productivity gains captured by shareholders. Are capital gains and dividends taxed at least at 70% in Sweden?

1. Salary is your company's money that becomes your money. 2. Capital tax is tax on your company's money. 3. Income tax is tax on your money. With either tax, the economic system that consists of you and your employer is being robbed. Speaking of which, if someone takes your groceries and runs, just before you have paid for them, that is shoplifting. If it's just after you paid, it's robbery. You might think you're b…

The situation is trickle down from laissez-faire is definitely proven wrong just by the situation we are in and is the starting point of the discussion. Tax is just a tool to correct the failure of the system of failing to correctly redistribute productivity gains from workers starting a few decades ago (and the point above is with the promises of LLM it’s crucial we address that situation). Robbery or not is not the debate here, income tax higher than capital tax is just a good candidate cause and solution (given historical data), but of course we can discuss alternatives.

Re: I wish GPT4 had never happened

#932

Post by OOPMan »

hgs3 wrote: post #708
lumb63 wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This problem isn’t specific to AI. Luddites were concerned about machines taking their jobs. Marx recognized the role of “capital” (of which AI is the intellectual type) in suppressing the incomes of the working class relative to the owning class. Both Marx and the Luddites conceived of different solutions. One solution (the Luddite one) is to eschew the technology. If nobody adopts the technology, nobody has to, but…

My own pet idea for economic reform would be to have people democratically vote on the services they want and if there aren't enough volunteers/robots/AI to perform them then you draft people. In this scenario people will get the services they themselves are willing to put in the work for. Such a system wouldn't need money, would be fair, and technological advancements would bring freedom.

Right....and all the people not working would get paid how exactly?

Or does this system just assume they're all homeless and jobless?

If it's the latter then I'm sure it could work...not sure it would be a huge improvement tho...

Re: I wish GPT4 had never happened

#934

Post by mbar84 »

HyperSane wrote: post #450

The fact that so many people fear loss of income as a result of better AI is a real indictment of our economic system. A better system that more fairly distributed economic productivity would make people welcome better AI because they could be confident it would make everyone wealthier instead of just a few people rich enough to be Goa'uld.

When circumstances change, people's behaviour must change. People don't like to change, some even fear change. If some people are insulated from reality, such that they don't need to change, other people will have to bare the cost. There is no economic system that can spare us from the need to adapt.

Re: I wish GPT4 had never happened

#935

Post by oort-cloud9 »

tarsinge wrote: post #931
kazinator wrote: post #925

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Salary is your company's money that becomes your money. 2. Capital tax is tax on your company's money. 3. Income tax is tax on your money. With either tax, the economic system that consists of you and your employer is being robbed. Speaking of which, if someone takes your groceries and runs, just before you have paid for them, that is shoplifting. If it's just after you paid, it's robbery. You might think you're b…

The situation is trickle down from laissez-faire is definitely proven wrong just by the situation we are in and is the starting point of the discussion. Tax is just a tool to correct the failure of the system of failing to correctly redistribute productivity gains from workers starting a few decades ago (and the point above is with the promises of LLM it’s crucial we address that situation). Robbery or not is not the…

[dead]

Re: I wish GPT4 had never happened

#936

Post by hgs3 »

OOPMan wrote: post #932
hgs3 wrote: post #708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My own pet idea for economic reform would be to have people democratically vote on the services they want and if there aren't enough volunteers/robots/AI to perform them then you draft people. In this scenario people will get the services they themselves are willing to put in the work for. Such a system wouldn't need money, would be fair, and technological advancements would bring freedom.

Right....and all the people not working would get paid how exactly? Or does this system just assume they're all homeless and jobless? If it's the latter then I'm sure it could work...not sure it would be a huge improvement tho...

> Right....and all the people not working would get paid how exactly ?

There's no money in this system.

> Or does this system just assume they're all homeless and jobless?

If people want "homes" then they democratically vote that they do and, if the vote passes, then people volunteer to build those homes. If there aren't enough volunteers to build the homes, then people are conscripted. This is not unlike the military where if there aren't enough soldiers you draft more.

Everything we have today is because someone built it. What is stopping people from continuing to build in the absence of money? It seems money is more or less a "hack" to circumvent the shortcomings of human nature. There needs to be a culture shift towards a labor-first mindset and better role models (i.e. don't glorify the wealthy, glorify those who build amazing things and share them for free). People should build and innovate because they want to, because it means a better life. In the system I've described the standard of living people have is directly tied to what they and their neighbors are willing to work for. If folks don't want to work, then we'll go back to living in caves, but if we continue pressing forward then we'll eventually enter a Star Trekien techno-utopia.

Re: I wish GPT4 had never happened

#937

Post by agrittiwari »

surgical_fire wrote: post #156

Funny thing - I've been using ChatGPT as a programming assistant. My experience with it is that the more knowledgeable I am at the domain, the more useful it is. It often generates code that won't compile or won't run correctly, but that sort of goes in the correct direction, enough that I can spot the blunders and refine my questions. Quite often I even learn a few new things when using it to explore libraries and f…

But on the contrary, It can speed up learning a technology as you go, like a senior engineer packed with knowledge available to you. You could be not knowing the frontend!? You can ask it exactly what you don't understood.And it'll never get bore and try to formulate the answer in a frame that it settles you an understanding, not limited to what your senior has settled with. I would say, it's a good tool available to you when senior engineer/mentor isn't.

Re: I wish GPT4 had never happened

#938

Post by Herval_freire »

dns_snek wrote: post #920
Herval_freire wrote: post #729

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by fairly distributed? If all my machines are better than you intellectually and all my machines are stronger and faster than you physically... Then it is completely fair for me to not give you any wealth because the machines out perform you. People fear AI because the fair outcome is in fact detrimental for a good portion of humanity. That is the paradoxical irony. In theory to save people you must…

> In theory to save people you must function as a welfare state with things like ubi. You must deliberately distribute income unfairly. This is only true for perverted definition of the word "fair" which allows owners/investors to perpetually capture 99.9% of the value produced by people who research, develop, build, and operate "your" machines. When this is your ground truth, I can see how you would perceive a truly…

Right so if I'm a janitor and I use chemicals to clean things which is the result of hundreds of years of human ingenuity and chemical engineering I suddenly owe humanity money?

No. That is the perverted idea. I'm simply talking about fair as in fair trade. As in what is defined as a fair trade and a fair transaction according to economic theory and common sense. I am using the absolute most normal and most common sense meaning of the word "fair."

You are the one in your words: "perverting" the meaning. Perversion is actually too strong of a word. I would say you are definitely twisting the meaning and using an uncommon and sort of made up definition.

According to the most common usage of the word fair those who own AI only owe what they paid for. If they give away money then the economy is becoming more socialist or in another words an even distribution of wealth, but certainly unfair in the eyes of capitalism and fair trade and the fair exchange of goods.

Keep in mind though I'm not blindly supporting capitalism. The future of society may rely on a more practical but more unfair distribution of wealth. But we have to face the fact that such a distribution is fundamentally unfair.

Re: I wish GPT4 had never happened

#939

Post by tekknik »

__pache__ wrote: post #896
tekknik wrote: post #894

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> technology made the horse obsolete it did not, there are plenty of situations in which technology is less preferred to a horse (or mule), like say climbing everest or various other difficult terrains. it did reduce the amount of working horses though

Yes it did.

Move any amount of equipment up a mountain or on public land and say that again.

Re: I wish GPT4 had never happened

#940

Post by dns_snek »

spaceman_2020 wrote: post #768
dns_snek wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But as we lower that bar, the value a computer programmer has may begin to diminish. As a developer, I feel like it's the opposite. If anything, it's going to raise the bar by replacing low skilled coders who are only good at cheaply producing piles of future tech debt, GPT4 will do that sort of work for 'free'. On the other hand it's going to empower non-programmers to write or debug low complexity scripts on thei…

I’ve personally been asking chatGPT design decisions about databases and app structure. I give it some starting ideas and ask it what would be the best path to achieve some stated goals. It gives me the options and tells me what would be the best path. I’ve asked experienced developer friends and they say that they would likely have similar discussions among themselves. Except now chatgpt is doing that.

Right, I'm not disputing that it can be an extremely useful tool. I often use it myself to bounce ideas or to ask an open-ended questions that search engines are failing to answer, with mixed results.

My belief is that there's a huge rift between GPT-n being an extremely useful tool (which it often is) and it being able to outright replace your job.

Post reply on HN