5 ms·

Sure, but once you learn that new thing, an AI can learn it too and apply the knowledge more efficiently than you can.

• __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
  Right, which is why we need more humans learning new things: so the AI's can be even more useful.
  • rcme 4y ago
    I don't think you can really call "learning new things for the AI" recourse for an AI taking your job. Can you feed your family with new ideas?
    • __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
      If they're the only thing in short supply--given that the AIs are superior at everything else--then yes I suppose I can. And if it doesn't turn out that way, we can always eat the rich until it does.
  • JohnFen 4y ago
    > so the AI's can be even more useful. That's an utterly depressing thought. It means we're slaves.
    • pixl97 4y ago
      You're already a slave to many things, you just accept them as status quo.
      • JohnFen 4y ago
        Well, if you expand the definition of "slave" enough, I suppose so. But in reality, I have plenty of choice and freedom. If the only way I can live, though, is to feed my ideas to a master AI, then I really am a slave. I would argue that such a life is not worth the effort.
        • __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
          When you had to put your ideas on paper to be paid for them, did you feel like a slave to paper? Do you feel like a slave to hypertext and markdown? Publishing as contributions towards weights in a statistical model isn't significantly different. It's just easier to query.
          • JohnFen 4y ago
            No, for two main reasons. First, the purpose of my effort was not to enrich the paper, or enrich the web server. Second, because those things are my tools, not my competition. Paper is not going to make it so that there is no work available, nor are webservers. AI (as proponents expect it to be) will replace the majority of people's jobs.
    • __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
      Does it? It seems to me like a milestone in the quest to eliminate scarcity (which is why we bother with having an economy in the first place, right?). We suck at collaborating. If an AI can mediate collaboration across time and space so that its as if every problem has precisely the right expertise at hand for its solving--even though the actual experts are on vacation--that's a win. If its a win that's incompatible with our habit of letting markets handle everything, then so much the worse for markets.
      • JohnFen 4y ago
        I honestly don't see the win there. If AI means that every problem has the right expertise even if the humans aren't there, that means the humans are dispensable. Which means they will be dispensed with. Why would any business employ people when they have a cheaper option? I can't see a field that this doesn't hold true with. What will happen when there's no work available at all for most people? How will they pay bills, eat, and so forth? If the enthusiasts are correct about the direction AI is going, I honestly can't see any way this ends up good for anybody but a small group of people. (To the downvoters: please, tell me how I'm wrong. I really do want to be wrong here!)
        • __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
          > How will they pay bills? If the problem that we're facing is a surplus of labor, then what do we need money for?
          • JohnFen 4y ago
            Because nothing comes for free, and it's certainly not going to start anytime soon.
            • __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
              Why not? Don't you think that axiom will have to be retired sooner or later?