3 ms·

Yes, human economy is about the exchange of value between humans – a cheap tautology from Carmack. Money is indeed irrelevant to a snail, as opposed to a would-

by Radim 4y ago

Yes, human economy is about the exchange of value between humans – a cheap tautology from Carmack. Money is indeed irrelevant to a snail, as opposed to a would-be SW engineer. But Nature is about making better use of energy gradients, always doing more with less, the principle of least action. Using any surplus to do it again (i.e. evolved life). That's the properly grounded perspective. In that sense "Get skills to satisfy humans and you'll probably be fine!" sounds super myopic. The anxiety we humans feel when confronted with AI is not only that we'll be out of our job as a programmer, or doctor, or driver, or teacher, or whatever. It's the broader sense of unease that humanity's gradient-razing days, spectacular as they were all the way to nuclear fission and fusion, may soon be over. And "economy" as a useful tool advancing that Nature's mission will have evolved beyond us. "Making humans satisfied" is not terribly relevant from that perspective. Vast swathes of the human economy are just scaffolding to support the rest: humans reproducing to keep the optimization machine going. The overhead is tremendous. Once Nature finds a way to do more with less, I have zero doubt much of that scaffolding will be optimized away. That's some definition of "fine". Or maybe I misunderstood and Carmack is merely suggesting individuals try to adapt and hope for the best. What else can you do anyway? That would be the honest answer. Rather than bloviating about "Guide AI with your product skills to deliver value to humans" – an embarrassing category error.

z7 4y ago
Interesting critical response currently buried at the bottom of page 2. Doesn't surprise me really. Frankly this thread is an embarrassment. And not because of whatever someone's conclusion is but because of a noted lack of critical reasoning in this case.
awesomeMilou 4y ago
> It's the broader sense of unease that humanity's gradient-razing days, [...], may soon be over. No, the sense of unease comes from people fearing for their livelihood, given that it looks like that their raison d'être is about to be revoked by some AI automating their career away. A point you so aptly summarized with: > Vast swathes of the human economy are just scaffolding to support the rest: humans reproducing to keep the optimization machine going. The unease is, imo, only so palpable however, because every stakeholder that stands from profiting from such a development - i.e. capital owners - refuse to describe it as what the development really is. Publicly advertising AI as "we're basicially moonshotting the largest job automation operation ever attempted, so 20-30% of you will be out of a job in the next 15 years" would probably cause unrest - and rightly so! > What else can you do anyway? Communism - and ya hate to see it (as an american)! The means of production becoming dead-simple to use, that's a prelude for the proletariat being able to seize them. On a more serious note, you can always protest, and escalate, which I'm hoping will happen.
- Radim 4y ago
  > the sense of unease comes from people fearing for their livelihood, given that it looks like that their raison d'être is about to be revoked by some AI automating their career away You're on the same boat with Carmack if that's where you find the danger. Then his advice applies. People have had their livelihood threatened since forever – that is not a new state of affairs. That anxiety we're well equipped to deal with, hard (and genocidal) as it sometimes is. Just another gold rush for resources, and for status, and for reproductive success. A new caste of winners. Same old. > so 20-30% of you will be out of a job in the next 15 years My point was that jobs (and money, and market…) are a machine that serves human ends. The end consumer is always a human, that's our economy's anchor point. Whatever energy is put to work is ultimately in service of someone getting laid or fed, or their desires/ideals (~firings inside their brains). As long as that's true, "keep your eyes on delivering value to humans" is a safe bet – just like Carmack says. Mine was a simple thermodynamical note on Nature (e.g. via one of its creations, humans) finding a more efficient way to bulldoze energy gradients, the true currency of the universe, thus unanchoring our "jobs and careers" system. By cutting out the very expensive middle man. --------- Your remark on communism is also interesting in that sense. I see a parallel in that the concept of dissolution of individual into a commune, has been introduced several times in large societies, each time resulting in millions of deaths and general devastation. Yet it keeps bouncing back – some very strong attraction basin lurking there, evolutionarily speaking. Not to be trivialized by snarky political one-liners.

by Radim 4y ago

z7 4y ago

Interesting critical response currently buried at the bottom of page 2. Doesn't surprise me really. Frankly this thread is an embarrassment. And not because of whatever someone's conclusion is but because of a noted lack of critical reasoning in this case.

awesomeMilou 4y ago

> It's the broader sense of unease that humanity's gradient-razing days, [...], may soon be over. No, the sense of unease comes from people fearing for their livelihood, given that it looks like that their raison d'être is about to be revoked by some AI automating their career away. A point you so aptly summarized with: > Vast swathes of the human economy are just scaffolding to support the rest: humans reproducing to keep the optimization machine going. The unease is, imo, only so palpable however, because every stakeholder that stands from profiting from such a development - i.e. capital owners - refuse to describe it as what the development really is. Publicly advertising AI as "we're basicially moonshotting the largest job automation operation ever attempted, so 20-30% of you will be out of a job in the next 15 years" would probably cause unrest - and rightly so! > What else can you do anyway? Communism - and ya hate to see it (as an american)! The means of production becoming dead-simple to use, that's a prelude for the proletariat being able to seize them. On a more serious note, you can always protest, and escalate, which I'm hoping will happen.

Radim 4y ago
> the sense of unease comes from people fearing for their livelihood, given that it looks like that their raison d'être is about to be revoked by some AI automating their career away You're on the same boat with Carmack if that's where you find the danger. Then his advice applies. People have had their livelihood threatened since forever – that is not a new state of affairs. That anxiety we're well equipped to deal with, hard (and genocidal) as it sometimes is. Just another gold rush for resources, and for status, and for reproductive success. A new caste of winners. Same old. > so 20-30% of you will be out of a job in the next 15 years My point was that jobs (and money, and market…) are a machine that serves human ends. The end consumer is always a human, that's our economy's anchor point. Whatever energy is put to work is ultimately in service of someone getting laid or fed, or their desires/ideals (~firings inside their brains). As long as that's true, "keep your eyes on delivering value to humans" is a safe bet – just like Carmack says. Mine was a simple thermodynamical note on Nature (e.g. via one of its creations, humans) finding a more efficient way to bulldoze energy gradients, the true currency of the universe, thus unanchoring our "jobs and careers" system. By cutting out the very expensive middle man. --------- Your remark on communism is also interesting in that sense. I see a parallel in that the concept of dissolution of individual into a commune, has been introduced several times in large societies, each time resulting in millions of deaths and general devastation. Yet it keeps bouncing back – some very strong attraction basin lurking there, evolutionarily speaking. Not to be trivialized by snarky political one-liners.