3 ms·

What if $7 trillion was spent eliminating economic disparities, enriching our learning institutions, fostering individual and community well-being, and ultimate

What if $7 trillion was spent eliminating economic disparities, enriching our learning institutions, fostering individual and community well-being, and ultimately drawing us away from digital technology and media as the panacea of social-control which is monopolizing our time and attention? Do we really need AGI to solve problems for us, or might the already-existing general intelligence imbued in each of us at birth be enough?

apantel 2y ago
We won’t know the answer to this until we see what AGI brings.
- mrbungie 2y ago
  And if AGI eventually comes from OpenAI. I'm starting to doubt that.
- saulpw 2y ago
  Well since we haven't tried spending $7t on those other things, if it works to bring about AGI we'll be stuck with it even if it doesn't really help, and if it doesn't bring about AGI we'll be all out of cash. I'd prefer the opposite strategy personally (especially since I already exist).
  - namaria 2y ago
    > we'll be all out of cash Cash is not coal. We're not burning it to get AGI. People will be getting paid to build and run the hardware. This is a cash grab from the infrastructure players. Always been.
- tmpz22 2y ago
  Do we actually think AGI will be used for public good or will it be used to further enrich the 1%?
  - apantel 2y ago
    It’s not an OR. It won’t be binary. Did the internet only enrich the 1%? Or only do public good? No it affected everyone for better and worse.
  - purple-leafy 2y ago
    AGI will ruin the life of every modern worker
BobbyJo 2y ago
> What if $7 trillion was spent eliminating economic disparities, enriching our learning institutions, fostering individual and community well-being, and ultimately drawing us away from digital technology and media as the panacea of social-control which is monopolizing our time and attention These are largely not problems money can solve. Economic disparity is systemic, and changing the system would be nearly free if we knew how to change it to alleviate such disparity. Community well-being has more to do with involvement than money. Getting away from electronics is not only free, but will save you money. People just choose not to, and money isn't going to fix that. Schools could use more funding though. I'm with you there.
- __loam 2y ago
  I don't know, spending a trillion dollars on housing development would probably solve a lot of problems.
  - duped 2y ago
    Or a trillion dollars on just teachers. Not "education" but teachers themselves. Hell the effective altruists would say giving a trillion dollars to people would be pretty effective.
- imtringued 2y ago
  >Economic disparity is systemic, and changing the system would be nearly free if we knew how to change it to alleviate such disparity We already know how to do that and it has already been tried with great success. The reality though is that humans simply aren't ready for it. You can see the hypocrisy in real socialist countries. They could adopt the system and become the heroes of humanity overnight and yet they decided to oppress their citizens and await the collapse of their poorly thought out system instead. If the people claiming to fight against capitalism don't actually want to fight capitalism then expecting people who like capitalism to end it is even more hopeless. You said changing the system would be nearly free. In theory it is. You could end capitalism with an investment of less than a billion dollars. Probably twenty million if you can get volunteers on board for ten years and even less if you could do it in a country with less expensive bank regulations. Yet I do not see such things happen. Nobody is actually trying. When you tell people the solution all I see is their inner capitalist who rejects the idea because they didn't actually care about their current life being shit, what they wanted is for the remote chance of being rich occurring to them to be worth the sacrifice of a life in poverty to keep them complacent. They would never choose a two times better life if it meant giving up becoming rich. Both the communists and capitalists are willingly harming themselves and making their lives worse and they accept that. It is utterly pointless, but here we are. There is a lever you could flick to end it, but they don't. In a way the economists are correct. The problem is that people aren't selfish enough.
tayo42 2y ago
Isn't the money your talking about intended to be an investment that returns more? I don't think anyone is just giving money away without expecting to at least break even.

apantel 2y ago

We won’t know the answer to this until we see what AGI brings.

mrbungie 2y ago
And if AGI eventually comes from OpenAI. I'm starting to doubt that.
saulpw 2y ago
Well since we haven't tried spending $7t on those other things, if it works to bring about AGI we'll be stuck with it even if it doesn't really help, and if it doesn't bring about AGI we'll be all out of cash. I'd prefer the opposite strategy personally (especially since I already exist).
- namaria 2y ago
  > we'll be all out of cash Cash is not coal. We're not burning it to get AGI. People will be getting paid to build and run the hardware. This is a cash grab from the infrastructure players. Always been.
tmpz22 2y ago
Do we actually think AGI will be used for public good or will it be used to further enrich the 1%?
- apantel 2y ago
  It’s not an OR. It won’t be binary. Did the internet only enrich the 1%? Or only do public good? No it affected everyone for better and worse.
- purple-leafy 2y ago
  AGI will ruin the life of every modern worker

BobbyJo 2y ago

> What if $7 trillion was spent eliminating economic disparities, enriching our learning institutions, fostering individual and community well-being, and ultimately drawing us away from digital technology and media as the panacea of social-control which is monopolizing our time and attention These are largely not problems money can solve. Economic disparity is systemic, and changing the system would be nearly free if we knew how to change it to alleviate such disparity. Community well-being has more to do with involvement than money. Getting away from electronics is not only free, but will save you money. People just choose not to, and money isn't going to fix that. Schools could use more funding though. I'm with you there.

__loam 2y ago
I don't know, spending a trillion dollars on housing development would probably solve a lot of problems.
- duped 2y ago
  Or a trillion dollars on just teachers. Not "education" but teachers themselves. Hell the effective altruists would say giving a trillion dollars to people would be pretty effective.
imtringued 2y ago
>Economic disparity is systemic, and changing the system would be nearly free if we knew how to change it to alleviate such disparity We already know how to do that and it has already been tried with great success. The reality though is that humans simply aren't ready for it. You can see the hypocrisy in real socialist countries. They could adopt the system and become the heroes of humanity overnight and yet they decided to oppress their citizens and await the collapse of their poorly thought out system instead. If the people claiming to fight against capitalism don't actually want to fight capitalism then expecting people who like capitalism to end it is even more hopeless. You said changing the system would be nearly free. In theory it is. You could end capitalism with an investment of less than a billion dollars. Probably twenty million if you can get volunteers on board for ten years and even less if you could do it in a country with less expensive bank regulations. Yet I do not see such things happen. Nobody is actually trying. When you tell people the solution all I see is their inner capitalist who rejects the idea because they didn't actually care about their current life being shit, what they wanted is for the remote chance of being rich occurring to them to be worth the sacrifice of a life in poverty to keep them complacent. They would never choose a two times better life if it meant giving up becoming rich. Both the communists and capitalists are willingly harming themselves and making their lives worse and they accept that. It is utterly pointless, but here we are. There is a lever you could flick to end it, but they don't. In a way the economists are correct. The problem is that people aren't selfish enough.

tayo42 2y ago

Isn't the money your talking about intended to be an investment that returns more? I don't think anyone is just giving money away without expecting to at least break even.