4 ms·
Agree. All historical comparison to prior disruptions are invalid. The reason they are invalid, is that all prior disruptions were narrow, were followed by per
by 13years 4y ago
Agree. All historical comparison to prior disruptions are invalid.
The reason they are invalid, is that all prior disruptions were narrow, were followed by periods of stabilization that allowed people to plan and reason about their lives.
AI is the opposite in this regard, it is broad and there is no period of stabilization. It is continual acceleration.
AI is a skill/technology replication machine. This concept has never existed before. The impacts are not relatable to anything else.
The implications go far beyond jobs as well. The potential cultural and societal impacts are equally as disturbing. I've written in detail about some of those possibilities here.
https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-and-the-end-to-all-things https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-and-the-end-to-all-things
- atodorov99 4y agoI completely agree. I do not understand why some people are downvoting you. Everyone on this site (assuming at least 95% are developers) should conceptually understand that AI to office jobs is nothing like tractors to farmers. Before AGI it's an arms race between what skill can humans acquire that AI can't yet simulate. After AGI there is no contest. It's crazy to me how I have memories of AI discussions from years back where this crucial difference was well known and acknowledged. But right now it feels like half the people are turning a blind eye to it on purpose.
- 13years 4y agoYes, I've described it in the article above as "Climbing the skill ladder is going to look more like running on a treadmill at the gym. No matter how fast you run, you aren’t moving, AI is still right behind you learning everything that you can do."
- CatWChainsaw 3y agoBecause they are, because they don't want to acknowledge that reality is bleaker than they pictured.