> any physical or cognitive task there aren’t exactly many roles that a human being can play that are additive to the economy. What a terribly small imaginatio

> any physical or cognitive task there aren’t exactly many roles that a human being can play that are additive to the economy. What a terribly small imagination this presents. There is life outside of your cubicle. There always was. > Each time a person engages in work that could be done more efficiently by a machine, the employing party—be that company, government or charity—will have to bear the opportunity cost of using AI. Your LLMs run on GPUs and have no physical component. Those physical components aren't free, require maintenance, and break at inconvenient times. This is not a zero sum future or one that doesn't require intelligent economic planning. > It’s like when a toddler ‘helps’ you wash the dishes. It's cute you presume your "AGI" is going to /want/ to do anything for you. In particular, mundane chores, like washing your dishes, or that you as an individual would be able to afford it. Anyways, it's an interesting past time around here, rather than admit the gulf between the current technologies and what AGI is imagined to be, we just troll through the past looking for anyone who even remotely made a "thinking machine" part of a fictional story. Well, one part she got right, the machine presents itself as something of a useless chat bot.