3 ms·

Great results. However, let's all just admit it. It has well replaced journalists, artists and on its way to replace nearly both junior and senior engineers. T

by rvz 2y ago

Great results. However, let's all just admit it. It has well replaced journalists, artists and on its way to replace nearly both junior and senior engineers. The ultimate intention of "AGI" is that it is going to replace tens of millions of jobs. That is it and you know it. It will only accelerate and we need to stop pretending and coping. Instead lets discuss solutions for those lost jobs. So what is the replacement for these lost jobs? (It is not UBI or "better jobs" without defining them.)

neom 2y ago
Do you follow Jack Clark? I noticed he's been on the road a lot talking to governments and policy makers, and not just in the "AI is coming" way he used to talk.
whynotminot 2y ago
When none of us have jobs or income, there will be no ability for us to buy products. And then no reason for companies to buy ads to sell products to people who don’t have money. Without ad money (or the potential of future ad money), the people pushing the bounds of AGI into work replacement will lose the very income streams powering this research and their valuations. Ford didn’t support a 40 hour work week out of the kindness of his heart. He wanted his workers to have time off for buying things (like his cars). I wonder if our AGI industrialist overlords will do something similar for revenue sharing or UBI.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  This picture doesn't make sense. If most don't have any money to buy products, just invent some other money and start paying one of the other people who doesn't have any money to start making the products for you. In reality, if there really is mass unemployment, AI driven automation will make consumables so cheap that anyone will be able to buy it.
  - whynotminot 2y ago
    > This picture doesn't make sense. If most don't have any money to buy products, just invent some other money and start paying one of the other people who doesn't have any money to start making the products for you. Uh, this picture doesn’t make sense. Why would anyone value this randomly invented money?
    - whimsicalism 2y ago
      > Why would anyone value this randomly invented money? Because they can use it to pay for goods? Your notion is that almost everyone is going to be out of a job and thus have nothing. Okay, so I'm one of those people and I need this house built. But I'm not making any money because of AI or whatever. Maybe someone else needs someone to drive their aging relative around and they're a good builder. If 1. neither of those people have jobs or income because of AI 2. AI isn't provisioning services for basically free, then it makes sense for them to do an exchange of labor - even with AI (if that AI is not providing services to everyone). The original reason for having money and exchanging it still exists.
      - whynotminot 2y ago
        Honestly I don’t even know how to engage with your point. Yes if we recreate society some form of money would likely emerge.
      - neom 2y ago
        Didn't money basically only emerge to deal with with difficulty of “double coincidence of wants”. Money simply solved the problem of making all forms of value interchangeable and transportable across time AND circumstance? A dollar can do with with or without AI existing no?
        whimsicalism 2y ago
        Yes, that's my point
      - staticman2 2y ago
        You seem to be arguing that large unemployment rates are logically impossible, so we shouldn't worry about unemployment. The fact unemployment was 25% during the great depression would seem to suggest that at a minimum, a 25% unemployment rate is possible during a disruptive event.
  - tivert 2y ago
    > This picture doesn't make sense. If most don't have any money to buy products, just invent some other money and start paying one of the other people who doesn't have any money to start making the products for you. Ultimately, it all comes down to raw materials and similar resources, and all those will be claimed by people with lots of real money. Your "invented ... other money" will be useless to buy that fundamental stuff. At best, it will be useful for trading scrap and other junk among the unemployed. > In reality, if there really is mass unemployment, AI driven automation will make consumables so cheap that anyone will be able to buy it. No. Why would the people who own that automation want to waste their resources producing consumer goods for people with nothing to give them in return?
    - whimsicalism 2y ago
      if people with AI use it to somehow enclose all raw resources, then yes - the picture i painted will be wrong
      - whynotminot 2y ago
        Enclosing raw resources tends to be what powerful people do.
        astrange 2y ago
        "Raw resources" aren't that valuable economically because they aren't where most of the value is added in production. That's why having a lot of them tends to make your country poorer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse).
        Jensson 2y ago
        Today educated humans are more valuable than anything else on earth, but AGI changes that. With cheap AGI raw resources and infrastructure will be the only two valuable things left.
  - astrange 2y ago
    > If most don't have any money to buy products, just invent some other money and start paying one of the other people who doesn't have any money to start making the products for you. This isn't possible if you want to pay sales taxes - those are what keep transactions being done in the official currency. Of course in a world of 99% unemployment presumably we don't care about this. But yes, this world of 99% unemployment isn't possible, eg because as soon as you have two people and they trade things, they're employed again.
- tivert 2y ago
  > When none of us have jobs or income, there will be no ability for us to buy products. And then no reason for companies to buy ads to sell products to people who don’t have money. Without ad money (or the potential of future ad money), the people pushing the bounds of AGI into work replacement will lose the very income streams powering this research and their valuations. I don't think so. I agree the push for AGI will kill the modern consumer product economy, but I think it's quite possible for the economy to evolve into a new form (that will probably be terrible for most humans) that keep pushes "work replacement." Imagine, an AGI billionare buying up land, mines, and power plants as the consumer economy dies, then shifting those resources away from the consumer economy into self-aggrandizing pet projects (e.g. ziggurats, penthouses on Mars, space yachts, life extension, and stuff like that). He might still employ a small community of servants, AGI researchers, and other specialists; but all the rest of the population will be irrelevant to him. And individual autarky probably isn't necessary, consumption will be redirected towards the massive pet production I mentioned, with vestigial markets for power, minerals, etc.
RivieraKid 2y ago
The economic theory answer is that people simply switch to jobs that are not yet replaceable by AI. Doctors, nurses, electricians, construction workers, police officers, etc. People in aggregate will produce more, consume more and work less.
- achierius 2y ago
  > Doctors Many replaceable > Police officers Many replaceable (desk officers)
- salawat 2y ago
  >Doctors capped per year by law. >Trades people only work after having something to do. If you don't have sufficient demand for builders, electricians, plumbers, etc... No one can afford to become one. Nevermind the fact that not everyone should be any of those things. Economics fails when the loop fails to close.
drdaeman 2y ago
> It has well replaced journalists, artists and on its way to replace nearly both junior and senior engineers. Did it, really? Or did it just provide automation for routine no-thinking-necessary text-writing tasks, but is still ultimately completely bound by the level of human operator's intelligence? I strongly suspect it's the latter. If it had actually replaced journalists it must be junk outlets, where readers' intelligence is negligible and anything goes. Just yesterday I've used o1 and Claude 3.5 to debug a Linux kernel issue (ultimately, a bad DSDT table causing TPM2 driver unable to reserve memory region for command response buffer, the solution was to use memmap to remove NVS flag from the relevant regions) and confirmed once again LLMs still don't reason at all - just spew out plausible-looking chains of words. The models were good listeners, and a mostly-helpful code generators (when they didn't make silliest mistakes), but they gave no traces of understanding and no attention for any nuances (e.g. LLM used `IS_ERR` to check `__request_resource` result, despite me giving it full source code for that function and there's even a comment that makes it obvious it returns a pointer or NULL, not an error code - misguided attention kind of mistake). So, in my opinion, LLMs (as currently available to broad public, like myself) are useful for automating away some routine stuff, but their usefulness is bounded by the operator's knowledge and intelligence. And that means that the actual jobs (if they require thinking and not just writing words) are safe. When asked about what I do at work, I used to joke that I just press buttons on my keyboard in fancy patterns. Ultimately, LLMs seem to suggest that it's not what I really do.

by rvz 2y ago

neom 2y ago

Do you follow Jack Clark? I noticed he's been on the road a lot talking to governments and policy makers, and not just in the "AI is coming" way he used to talk.

whynotminot 2y ago

When none of us have jobs or income, there will be no ability for us to buy products. And then no reason for companies to buy ads to sell products to people who don’t have money. Without ad money (or the potential of future ad money), the people pushing the bounds of AGI into work replacement will lose the very income streams powering this research and their valuations. Ford didn’t support a 40 hour work week out of the kindness of his heart. He wanted his workers to have time off for buying things (like his cars). I wonder if our AGI industrialist overlords will do something similar for revenue sharing or UBI.

whimsicalism 2y ago
This picture doesn't make sense. If most don't have any money to buy products, just invent some other money and start paying one of the other people who doesn't have any money to start making the products for you. In reality, if there really is mass unemployment, AI driven automation will make consumables so cheap that anyone will be able to buy it.
- whynotminot 2y ago
  > This picture doesn't make sense. If most don't have any money to buy products, just invent some other money and start paying one of the other people who doesn't have any money to start making the products for you. Uh, this picture doesn’t make sense. Why would anyone value this randomly invented money?
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    > Why would anyone value this randomly invented money? Because they can use it to pay for goods? Your notion is that almost everyone is going to be out of a job and thus have nothing. Okay, so I'm one of those people and I need this house built. But I'm not making any money because of AI or whatever. Maybe someone else needs someone to drive their aging relative around and they're a good builder. If 1. neither of those people have jobs or income because of AI 2. AI isn't provisioning services for basically free, then it makes sense for them to do an exchange of labor - even with AI (if that AI is not providing services to everyone). The original reason for having money and exchanging it still exists.
    - whynotminot 2y ago
      Honestly I don’t even know how to engage with your point. Yes if we recreate society some form of money would likely emerge.
    - neom 2y ago
      Didn't money basically only emerge to deal with with difficulty of “double coincidence of wants”. Money simply solved the problem of making all forms of value interchangeable and transportable across time AND circumstance? A dollar can do with with or without AI existing no?
      - whimsicalism 2y ago
        Yes, that's my point
    - staticman2 2y ago
      You seem to be arguing that large unemployment rates are logically impossible, so we shouldn't worry about unemployment. The fact unemployment was 25% during the great depression would seem to suggest that at a minimum, a 25% unemployment rate is possible during a disruptive event.
- tivert 2y ago
  > This picture doesn't make sense. If most don't have any money to buy products, just invent some other money and start paying one of the other people who doesn't have any money to start making the products for you. Ultimately, it all comes down to raw materials and similar resources, and all those will be claimed by people with lots of real money. Your "invented ... other money" will be useless to buy that fundamental stuff. At best, it will be useful for trading scrap and other junk among the unemployed. > In reality, if there really is mass unemployment, AI driven automation will make consumables so cheap that anyone will be able to buy it. No. Why would the people who own that automation want to waste their resources producing consumer goods for people with nothing to give them in return?
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    if people with AI use it to somehow enclose all raw resources, then yes - the picture i painted will be wrong
    - whynotminot 2y ago
      Enclosing raw resources tends to be what powerful people do.
      - astrange 2y ago
        "Raw resources" aren't that valuable economically because they aren't where most of the value is added in production. That's why having a lot of them tends to make your country poorer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse).
        Jensson 2y ago
        Today educated humans are more valuable than anything else on earth, but AGI changes that. With cheap AGI raw resources and infrastructure will be the only two valuable things left.
- astrange 2y ago
  > If most don't have any money to buy products, just invent some other money and start paying one of the other people who doesn't have any money to start making the products for you. This isn't possible if you want to pay sales taxes - those are what keep transactions being done in the official currency. Of course in a world of 99% unemployment presumably we don't care about this. But yes, this world of 99% unemployment isn't possible, eg because as soon as you have two people and they trade things, they're employed again.
tivert 2y ago
> When none of us have jobs or income, there will be no ability for us to buy products. And then no reason for companies to buy ads to sell products to people who don’t have money. Without ad money (or the potential of future ad money), the people pushing the bounds of AGI into work replacement will lose the very income streams powering this research and their valuations. I don't think so. I agree the push for AGI will kill the modern consumer product economy, but I think it's quite possible for the economy to evolve into a new form (that will probably be terrible for most humans) that keep pushes "work replacement." Imagine, an AGI billionare buying up land, mines, and power plants as the consumer economy dies, then shifting those resources away from the consumer economy into self-aggrandizing pet projects (e.g. ziggurats, penthouses on Mars, space yachts, life extension, and stuff like that). He might still employ a small community of servants, AGI researchers, and other specialists; but all the rest of the population will be irrelevant to him. And individual autarky probably isn't necessary, consumption will be redirected towards the massive pet production I mentioned, with vestigial markets for power, minerals, etc.

RivieraKid 2y ago

The economic theory answer is that people simply switch to jobs that are not yet replaceable by AI. Doctors, nurses, electricians, construction workers, police officers, etc. People in aggregate will produce more, consume more and work less.

achierius 2y ago
> Doctors Many replaceable > Police officers Many replaceable (desk officers)
salawat 2y ago
>Doctors capped per year by law. >Trades people only work after having something to do. If you don't have sufficient demand for builders, electricians, plumbers, etc... No one can afford to become one. Nevermind the fact that not everyone should be any of those things. Economics fails when the loop fails to close.

drdaeman 2y ago

> It has well replaced journalists, artists and on its way to replace nearly both junior and senior engineers. Did it, really? Or did it just provide automation for routine no-thinking-necessary text-writing tasks, but is still ultimately completely bound by the level of human operator's intelligence? I strongly suspect it's the latter. If it had actually replaced journalists it must be junk outlets, where readers' intelligence is negligible and anything goes. Just yesterday I've used o1 and Claude 3.5 to debug a Linux kernel issue (ultimately, a bad DSDT table causing TPM2 driver unable to reserve memory region for command response buffer, the solution was to use memmap to remove NVS flag from the relevant regions) and confirmed once again LLMs still don't reason at all - just spew out plausible-looking chains of words. The models were good listeners, and a mostly-helpful code generators (when they didn't make silliest mistakes), but they gave no traces of understanding and no attention for any nuances (e.g. LLM used `IS_ERR` to check `__request_resource` result, despite me giving it full source code for that function and there's even a comment that makes it obvious it returns a pointer or NULL, not an error code - misguided attention kind of mistake). So, in my opinion, LLMs (as currently available to broad public, like myself) are useful for automating away some routine stuff, but their usefulness is bounded by the operator's knowledge and intelligence. And that means that the actual jobs (if they require thinking and not just writing words) are safe. When asked about what I do at work, I used to joke that I just press buttons on my keyboard in fancy patterns. Ultimately, LLMs seem to suggest that it's not what I really do.