4 ms·

I suppose the difference is that coal, or energy, is an input into every process conceivable. Any kind of transport, transformation, or information about anythi

I suppose the difference is that coal, or energy, is an input into every process conceivable. Any kind of transport, transformation, or information about anything requires an energy source, and coal at the time was ideal. It even displaces food because you'd rather feed coal to a machine than food to a laborer. You get a virtuous circle from coal cheapening everything, coal demand increases, so it becomes worthwhile to improve coal tech/infra, and that makes coal cheaper again. Food itself is limited by declining returns. Your second steak isn't as good as the first, and at some point you stop even though you can afford it. Steel had a huge explosion but also ultimately found its limits. So what about AI? Well for the moment it seems limitless. There's a ridiculous number of things we can image we'd do if AI became cheap. In that way you might think it will go the way of coal.

bsenftner 3y ago
And as "we" attempt large scale automation, attempting to "automate our world", the devilish details and fractal complexity of a dynamic human society will be realized. Automation is an attempt to "freeze a process" and then accelerate it's handling, efficiencies, and outputs through machines - but is that even possible at city scale, not to contemplate larger scales yet, with a dynamic competitive human society inside? Will human society be future identified by the "version of automation" that ran at that time? Will future human society be constrained by the the designers of the automation in place, requiring violent overthrows to establish a newer automation? These speculations and similar strike me as infantile questions. I think as we approach our capabilities granted by AI, we will "see" the complexity of human civilization, in truth, for the first time. AI is a new set of eyes, data analysis is our vision, and as a civilization we've only been the three blind men examining an elephant. It's time to see what we are, and maybe, just maybe, mature enough to manage our own civilization without all our infantile infighting.
- pixl97 3y ago
  >Automation is an attempt to "freeze a process" Law is not significantly different in this case, though I would say its impacts are even more sweeping than any automation would be. No competition in law unless you're comparing different countries.

bsenftner 3y ago

And as "we" attempt large scale automation, attempting to "automate our world", the devilish details and fractal complexity of a dynamic human society will be realized. Automation is an attempt to "freeze a process" and then accelerate it's handling, efficiencies, and outputs through machines - but is that even possible at city scale, not to contemplate larger scales yet, with a dynamic competitive human society inside? Will human society be future identified by the "version of automation" that ran at that time? Will future human society be constrained by the the designers of the automation in place, requiring violent overthrows to establish a newer automation? These speculations and similar strike me as infantile questions. I think as we approach our capabilities granted by AI, we will "see" the complexity of human civilization, in truth, for the first time. AI is a new set of eyes, data analysis is our vision, and as a civilization we've only been the three blind men examining an elephant. It's time to see what we are, and maybe, just maybe, mature enough to manage our own civilization without all our infantile infighting.

pixl97 3y ago
>Automation is an attempt to "freeze a process" Law is not significantly different in this case, though I would say its impacts are even more sweeping than any automation would be. No competition in law unless you're comparing different countries.