4 ms·
I wish there was less focus on AI replacing humans and more focus on AI helping humans do better i.e. Intelligence Augmentation. IA drove a lot of the rapid pro
by 0xpgm 2y ago
I wish there was less focus on AI replacing humans and more focus on AI helping humans do better i.e. Intelligence Augmentation. IA drove a lot of the rapid progress in the earlier days of computing that made computers usable by non-experts.
I suspect a lot of the thinking of replacing humans is driven a lot by the nerd scifi facination with the Singularity, but if a lot of the hype fails to materialize after billions of dollars have been poured into AI there could be an over-correction by the market that would take away funding from even useful AI research.
I hope we'll hear less of AI replacing X, and more of AI enhancing X, where X is radiologists, programmers, artists etc.
- from-nibly 2y agoPeople becoming slightly more productive helps people. People being replaced helps quarterly earnings reports.
- musicale 2y agoPeople becoming slightly more productive also helps earnings reports. But automation is all about reducing labor costs. Even shoddy automation such as self checkout. I don't see this changing any time soon.
- randomdata 2y agoReplacing is better than helping, though. It frees people up to develop capital – the very source of progress you speak of! More capital development, more progress. If you still have to do the same job, but better, then you aren't be freed up for a higher level purpose. If we had taken your stance in earlier days of human history we'd all still be out standing in the field. Doing it slightly better perhaps, but still there, "wasting" time. No, we are clearly better off that almost every job from the past was replaced. And we will be better off when our current jobs are replaced so that our time is freed up so to move onto the next big thing. You don't think we have reached the pinnacle of human achievement already, surely?
- croes 2y agoCapital is a tool for progress not the source. Newton, Einstein etc. didn’t do neither for nor by the capital. And we all know that those “freed” people are less likely to gain any capital.
- randomdata 2y agoSome schools would consider their ideas capital. But, regardless, if what they did wasn't useful in the development of capital, nobody would have cared. It is their contributions to capital development that have made them household names.
- croes 2y agoI doubt that the contribution to capital development made Newton and Einstein household names. When the giant magnetoresistance was discovered it wasn’t useful at first. if all is capital focused we likely miss those discoveries.
- randomdata 2y agoWell, let's put it to the test. What "useless" scientific discovery has given someone a household name in recent years?
- croes 2y agoWhat useful discovery has given someone a household name in recent years? Household names are more likely celebrities than scientists.
- randomdata 2y agoHinton has become a household name, at least here in Canada. But only within recent years as his discoveries have now proven useful in capital creation. Nobody knew who he was in the 1980s when his discoveries were "useless". Which stands to reason. People only think about you if you do something for them. Newton and Einstein enabled the creation of capital that changed the world, so they are remembered. The guy who discovered something amazing beside them, but that which we still haven't figured out how to use, remains unknown.