7 ms·

Your comment is amazing in its naivete. The first sentence in the post you are replying to already includes awareness of everything you said and more, while not

Your comment is amazing in its naivete. The first sentence in the post you are replying to already includes awareness of everything you said and more, while nothing in your comment suggests you understood the post at all. Priya doesn't become 10 times more productive, someone else uses the tool to do her job, which no longer exists.

eloff 4y ago
That cycle has gone on since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Jobs are destroyed, people complain and protest, new jobs are created and the total economic pie and the absolute size of the average person’s slice increases. A valid question is are there inventions for which this would not be true? I think yes for general AI, but also yes for people who are unable to migrate between a job lost and any of the new jobs created due to lack of education or willingness to reinvent themselves or relocate to where the new jobs are. Innovation can definitely create winners and losers. That’s bad for the losers, but not necessarily for society as a whole. Unless so many losers are created that they rise up and overthrow the system. That’s a real long tail risk if the pace of change sufficiently outpaces our ability to adapt to it.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  Disruptions in the past have almost always been good for society overall, but there have also always been significant localized negative effects. For example, a farrier may have been thrown out of work and had to switch to unskilled labor, but their sons and daughters were better off. The issue is that as change comes faster and faster, a higher proportion of people fall into the "disrupted" category.
  - eloff 4y ago
    I agree, I said as much about winners and losers being created. It’s still a good thing for society - the alternative is halting or slowing progress.
    - ImHereToVote 4y ago
      Progress towards what?
      - slashdev 4y ago
        Don't be pedantic. From Oxford dictionary: "advance or development toward a better, more complete, or more modern condition"
        ImHereToVote 4y ago
        I'm not being pedantic. What the definition of "better" in this context is. Is everything.
        slashdev 4y ago
        You are being pedantic. You also came by with a three word troll comment. Why don't you make your argument properly and then I'll spend the effort to address it.
        ImHereToVote 4y ago
        It's important to consider the goals and motivations behind the development of AGI. Who is in control of this technology and how will it be used? The current power structure in our society is not interested in creating a better future for everyone. There is a growing concern that the development of AGI could be driven by the interests of a small group of people with a lot of power and money, rather than being used to create a better future for all people. In this context, I think it's important to ask "progress towards what?" and to define what we mean by "better". We need to ensure that the development of AGI is done with a goal of benefiting everyone, not just the wealthy and powerful. This requires a shift in our political and economic systems, so that power is more evenly distributed and the needs of all people are taken into account. I'm not saying that AGI is inherently bad, but we need to be cautious and intentional about its development and use. It's possible that AGI could be used to further entrench the power and control of the wealthy elite, rather than to create a better future for all people. To avoid this, we need to work towards creating a more democratic society where the benefits of technological progress are shared by all.
- Veen 4y ago
  You're right, but the phrase "people complain" elides a lot and shows a callous lack of empathy. People complain because they lose their jobs, their homes, their standard of living, their future prospects, their ability to feed their families, their relationships, their social status, their healthcare benefits and therefore their healthcare, their mental health, and in some cases their lives (suicide is not unusual for people who lose all of the above). For every Priya who gets a new job as an AI wrangler, there will be many who do not.
  - eloff 4y ago
    How that is handled really comes down to how your society has agreed to establish a social safety net. In Northern Europe it’s handled quite well. In the U.S. it’s handled with a “callous lack of empathy” as you phrased it. My point is disruption is the engine of progress, but it also causes temporary pain (that might not be temporary on the scale of human lifetimes.) It’s the wrong reaction to want to stop or slow progress. You can actually prove that through the lens of game theory and the fact that we have multiple human societies. The right thing to do is ensure your society doesn’t leave the losers of that process behind.
    - Veen 4y ago
      Sure, but many of the "progress is inevitable" people are also often the "get your stinking government hands off my hard-earned money" people. Increasing taxation of the beneficiaries of AI technology to provide a safety net for the losers is one way of dealing with it, but I'm not sure it's politically achievable in much of the world in a way that will instill confidence in the people who face the loss of their livelihoods.
      - eloff 4y ago
        "progress is inevitable": It's not actually. Progress is only made if people take the risk and effort to advance progress. That does require rewarding them appropriately for the risk taken. I'm not saying we get that balance exactly right currently, but it is necessary. In general just taxing the winners (wealthy) period is well tolerated politcally, but it also requires a goverment that's somewhat fiscally responsible and not spending $800B a year on their military instead of social programs. The US hasn't had a fiscally responsible government since Clinton, and the pigeons are currently coming home to roost in the form of inflation and loss of confidence in the US dollar as the reserve currency.
fastball 4y ago
Is there any broadly useful invention in the history of humanity that hasn't put someone out of a job?
moneywoes 4y ago
Or half her team gets fired
- sokoloff 4y ago
  And get hired at a place where software development now being cheaper per unit of functionality makes it economically tenable for that firm to have SWEs.
- simion314 4y ago
  Don't most companies have a giant backlog of bugs and todo items? if you get a productivity books with AI you can fix all those bugs the users reported and implement the feature your users want, and implement that hard feature you always wanted to add but you did not had the time.
  - couchand 4y ago
    Despite what many think, lack of fingers-on-keys is not what's keeping those bugs, todos, and features unbuilt.
    - simion314 4y ago
      I mean that if an AI can make me more productive then I can tackle those TODOs , I agree you can't just hire a new dev for those tasks because he will need training in our code base,t hat will cause me to waste more time training , explaining , debating stuff. Anm AI could help with boring crap like I could ask it to review my code for potential bugs, maybe write some tests, in future it could refactor some bad code to be more clear , like better variable names, split it in smaller functions, replace deprecated syntax and function with latest stuff. I think only a company with serious money issue would fire a good developer that you trained for years in your code base instead of letting him to focus on the TODOs/bugs and get things fixed and new features at a faster speed.
agilob 4y ago
>Priya doesn't become 10 times more productive, someone else uses the tool to do her job, which no longer exists. > got the answer wrong in the first try, but some chain-of-thought prompting and boom. GPT4 gave the correct answer And that person trusts GPT where it got things wrong, but continues hallucinations on the topic, later presents new raport, maybe research paper.
brookst 4y ago
How many people are in the workforce today compared to 100 years ago? Shouldn’t the huge productivity gains we’ve seen mean that there are fewer people with jobs today than there were then, by your reasoning?
stickfigure 4y ago
Priya has a university degree in biotechnology. If that doesn't qualify her for something more productive than GPT-level work, there's something fundamentally wrong with the educational system. She's in her 20s, educated, and lives in a country that, for all its problems, is on a strong growth trend. She's not a 60yo UAW worker in Detroit.
- birdyrooster 4y ago
  And yes there is something fundamentally wrong with the educational system and has been for decades. Companies doing ground breaking work have their pet colleges for recruiting and outsourcing, the rest just create outdated degrees for mega companies that used to exist. The students aren't great and the education is poor in most places.
- the_only_law 4y ago
  > Priya has a university degree in biotechnology. If that doesn't qualify her for something more productive than GPT-level work Don’t bio and related fields have an over supply? I was under the impression there weren’t enough jobs for people educated in these fields, especially not for “more productive than GPT-level work”.

eloff 4y ago

That cycle has gone on since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Jobs are destroyed, people complain and protest, new jobs are created and the total economic pie and the absolute size of the average person’s slice increases. A valid question is are there inventions for which this would not be true? I think yes for general AI, but also yes for people who are unable to migrate between a job lost and any of the new jobs created due to lack of education or willingness to reinvent themselves or relocate to where the new jobs are. Innovation can definitely create winners and losers. That’s bad for the losers, but not necessarily for society as a whole. Unless so many losers are created that they rise up and overthrow the system. That’s a real long tail risk if the pace of change sufficiently outpaces our ability to adapt to it.

bryanlarsen 4y ago
Disruptions in the past have almost always been good for society overall, but there have also always been significant localized negative effects. For example, a farrier may have been thrown out of work and had to switch to unskilled labor, but their sons and daughters were better off. The issue is that as change comes faster and faster, a higher proportion of people fall into the "disrupted" category.
- eloff 4y ago
  I agree, I said as much about winners and losers being created. It’s still a good thing for society - the alternative is halting or slowing progress.
  - ImHereToVote 4y ago
    Progress towards what?
    - slashdev 4y ago
      Don't be pedantic. From Oxford dictionary: "advance or development toward a better, more complete, or more modern condition"
      - ImHereToVote 4y ago
        I'm not being pedantic. What the definition of "better" in this context is. Is everything.
        slashdev 4y ago
        You are being pedantic. You also came by with a three word troll comment. Why don't you make your argument properly and then I'll spend the effort to address it.
        ImHereToVote 4y ago
        It's important to consider the goals and motivations behind the development of AGI. Who is in control of this technology and how will it be used? The current power structure in our society is not interested in creating a better future for everyone. There is a growing concern that the development of AGI could be driven by the interests of a small group of people with a lot of power and money, rather than being used to create a better future for all people. In this context, I think it's important to ask "progress towards what?" and to define what we mean by "better". We need to ensure that the development of AGI is done with a goal of benefiting everyone, not just the wealthy and powerful. This requires a shift in our political and economic systems, so that power is more evenly distributed and the needs of all people are taken into account. I'm not saying that AGI is inherently bad, but we need to be cautious and intentional about its development and use. It's possible that AGI could be used to further entrench the power and control of the wealthy elite, rather than to create a better future for all people. To avoid this, we need to work towards creating a more democratic society where the benefits of technological progress are shared by all.
Veen 4y ago
You're right, but the phrase "people complain" elides a lot and shows a callous lack of empathy. People complain because they lose their jobs, their homes, their standard of living, their future prospects, their ability to feed their families, their relationships, their social status, their healthcare benefits and therefore their healthcare, their mental health, and in some cases their lives (suicide is not unusual for people who lose all of the above). For every Priya who gets a new job as an AI wrangler, there will be many who do not.
- eloff 4y ago
  How that is handled really comes down to how your society has agreed to establish a social safety net. In Northern Europe it’s handled quite well. In the U.S. it’s handled with a “callous lack of empathy” as you phrased it. My point is disruption is the engine of progress, but it also causes temporary pain (that might not be temporary on the scale of human lifetimes.) It’s the wrong reaction to want to stop or slow progress. You can actually prove that through the lens of game theory and the fact that we have multiple human societies. The right thing to do is ensure your society doesn’t leave the losers of that process behind.
  - Veen 4y ago
    Sure, but many of the "progress is inevitable" people are also often the "get your stinking government hands off my hard-earned money" people. Increasing taxation of the beneficiaries of AI technology to provide a safety net for the losers is one way of dealing with it, but I'm not sure it's politically achievable in much of the world in a way that will instill confidence in the people who face the loss of their livelihoods.
    - eloff 4y ago
      "progress is inevitable": It's not actually. Progress is only made if people take the risk and effort to advance progress. That does require rewarding them appropriately for the risk taken. I'm not saying we get that balance exactly right currently, but it is necessary. In general just taxing the winners (wealthy) period is well tolerated politcally, but it also requires a goverment that's somewhat fiscally responsible and not spending $800B a year on their military instead of social programs. The US hasn't had a fiscally responsible government since Clinton, and the pigeons are currently coming home to roost in the form of inflation and loss of confidence in the US dollar as the reserve currency.

fastball 4y ago

Is there any broadly useful invention in the history of humanity that hasn't put someone out of a job?

moneywoes 4y ago

Or half her team gets fired

sokoloff 4y ago
And get hired at a place where software development now being cheaper per unit of functionality makes it economically tenable for that firm to have SWEs.
simion314 4y ago
Don't most companies have a giant backlog of bugs and todo items? if you get a productivity books with AI you can fix all those bugs the users reported and implement the feature your users want, and implement that hard feature you always wanted to add but you did not had the time.
- couchand 4y ago
  Despite what many think, lack of fingers-on-keys is not what's keeping those bugs, todos, and features unbuilt.
  - simion314 4y ago
    I mean that if an AI can make me more productive then I can tackle those TODOs , I agree you can't just hire a new dev for those tasks because he will need training in our code base,t hat will cause me to waste more time training , explaining , debating stuff. Anm AI could help with boring crap like I could ask it to review my code for potential bugs, maybe write some tests, in future it could refactor some bad code to be more clear , like better variable names, split it in smaller functions, replace deprecated syntax and function with latest stuff. I think only a company with serious money issue would fire a good developer that you trained for years in your code base instead of letting him to focus on the TODOs/bugs and get things fixed and new features at a faster speed.

agilob 4y ago

>Priya doesn't become 10 times more productive, someone else uses the tool to do her job, which no longer exists. > got the answer wrong in the first try, but some chain-of-thought prompting and boom. GPT4 gave the correct answer And that person trusts GPT where it got things wrong, but continues hallucinations on the topic, later presents new raport, maybe research paper.

brookst 4y ago

How many people are in the workforce today compared to 100 years ago? Shouldn’t the huge productivity gains we’ve seen mean that there are fewer people with jobs today than there were then, by your reasoning?

stickfigure 4y ago

Priya has a university degree in biotechnology. If that doesn't qualify her for something more productive than GPT-level work, there's something fundamentally wrong with the educational system. She's in her 20s, educated, and lives in a country that, for all its problems, is on a strong growth trend. She's not a 60yo UAW worker in Detroit.

birdyrooster 4y ago
And yes there is something fundamentally wrong with the educational system and has been for decades. Companies doing ground breaking work have their pet colleges for recruiting and outsourcing, the rest just create outdated degrees for mega companies that used to exist. The students aren't great and the education is poor in most places.
the_only_law 4y ago
> Priya has a university degree in biotechnology. If that doesn't qualify her for something more productive than GPT-level work Don’t bio and related fields have an over supply? I was under the impression there weren’t enough jobs for people educated in these fields, especially not for “more productive than GPT-level work”.