4 ms·

No my argument is that trying at a broad systemic level to make specific outcomes happen is susceptible to the information problem. Trying like the op suggested

by ch4s3 2y ago

No my argument is that trying at a broad systemic level to make specific outcomes happen is susceptible to the information problem. Trying like the op suggested to automate away work is utopian and improbable at best. If you squeeze labor out of one kind of drudgery you have no way of predicting the results, and you’re certainly not going to end up with Star Trek. To my minor aside, look at that shirt. You have to essentially glue the fabric into a board and all the robot can do is a rudimentary set of side seams and sleeves on the tshirt. There’s no finishing work on the collar or hem so it’s useless. That robot exists as a demo and is used precisely nowhere. You could in theory do this, but it makes no sense economically. And yes I’m aware of Japanese strawberry picking robots. You’ve clearly misunderstood what I’m saying. These thing may be technically possible but they remain infeasible for other reasons.

lurk2 2y ago
> No my argument is that trying at a broad systemic level to make specific outcomes happen is susceptible to the information problem. This is exactly what I said you would say: > I suppose the argument you are making is that any attempt to interfere with the present system of resource allocation will constitute a centralization that would be less effective than free market capitalism Further: > Trying like the op suggested to automate away work is utopian and improbable at best. We are a long way off from the self-replicating systems that could feasibly make work effectively optional, but you haven't made a convincing argument as to why it is improbable that automation could reach that point. > And yes I’m aware of Japanese strawberry picking robots. You clearly were not aware of them or you would have picked better examples. Your original comment consisted solely of the statement: "It's the same thing." and now you're continuing with that flippant attitude by pretending that I'm misunderstanding your argument when I anticipated it in its entirety.
- ch4s3 2y ago
  I clearly was aware of them. Do you think I just rattled of the bit about needing special glue to hold the fabric and only certain seam types being possible? There was a whole thing about these in the Economist last year and it was discussed on HN. While it’s technically possible you can’t deploy it. It turns out gluing an then applying solvents to fabrics doesn’t result in a product people want. This Star Trek stuff is improbable because everything has to be coordinated somehow and waving your hand and saying magical future ai is the only proposal anyone ever has. So yeah, maybe super advanced AGI could do it, but probably not. We don’t even have good models now of how large economies work down to a granular level. People are like I said messy and respond in weird ways to their environments. The best we can do right now is working with prices as signals for the amount of effort other people are willing to put into something. And while that’s imperfect, it’s just improbable that we can do much better. Which is not to say that narrow objectives aren’t possible, only that the bigger and broader you aim the more impossible it becomes.
  - lurk2 2y ago
    > I clearly was aware of them. You cited them as examples of tasks that would be difficult to automate. The pickers have been commercially deployed for the last four years. > This Star Trek stuff is improbable because everything has to be coordinated somehow and waving your hand and saying magical future ai is the only proposal anyone ever has. Redistribution already occurs without the use of an AI.
    - ch4s3 2y ago
      > You cited them as examples of tasks that would be difficult to automate. Yes because they are. I specifically gave an example where a machine exists but it's impossible to use for the real world, and an example where economics generally prevent adoption. That gets to my whole point. > The pickers have been commercially deployed for the last four years. Yes narrowly, and in only a few places where there are extreme labor shortages. You are clearly misunderstanding me. > Redistribution already occurs without the use of an AI. I didn't make the claim that it didn't happen. I feel like you're willfully ignoring what I'm saying. These things are hard and rolling them out universally often doesn't work because it is either impractical or economically infeasible to automate things or you run up against regulatory/cultural/material issues. The best we can do is piecemeal progress where incentives align.
      - lurk2 2y ago
        [flagged]
        ch4s3 2y ago
        > We've already established that you were wrong about that as these machines are in commercial deployment. No there are literally no companies using that sewing robot, you can't buy that shirt. > No, you're wrong. You clearly know nothing about this issue You're being very rude, this isn't twitter.

by ch4s3 2y ago

lurk2 2y ago

> No my argument is that trying at a broad systemic level to make specific outcomes happen is susceptible to the information problem. This is exactly what I said you would say: > I suppose the argument you are making is that any attempt to interfere with the present system of resource allocation will constitute a centralization that would be less effective than free market capitalism Further: > Trying like the op suggested to automate away work is utopian and improbable at best. We are a long way off from the self-replicating systems that could feasibly make work effectively optional, but you haven't made a convincing argument as to why it is improbable that automation could reach that point. > And yes I’m aware of Japanese strawberry picking robots. You clearly were not aware of them or you would have picked better examples. Your original comment consisted solely of the statement: "It's the same thing." and now you're continuing with that flippant attitude by pretending that I'm misunderstanding your argument when I anticipated it in its entirety.

ch4s3 2y ago
I clearly was aware of them. Do you think I just rattled of the bit about needing special glue to hold the fabric and only certain seam types being possible? There was a whole thing about these in the Economist last year and it was discussed on HN. While it’s technically possible you can’t deploy it. It turns out gluing an then applying solvents to fabrics doesn’t result in a product people want. This Star Trek stuff is improbable because everything has to be coordinated somehow and waving your hand and saying magical future ai is the only proposal anyone ever has. So yeah, maybe super advanced AGI could do it, but probably not. We don’t even have good models now of how large economies work down to a granular level. People are like I said messy and respond in weird ways to their environments. The best we can do right now is working with prices as signals for the amount of effort other people are willing to put into something. And while that’s imperfect, it’s just improbable that we can do much better. Which is not to say that narrow objectives aren’t possible, only that the bigger and broader you aim the more impossible it becomes.
- lurk2 2y ago
  > I clearly was aware of them. You cited them as examples of tasks that would be difficult to automate. The pickers have been commercially deployed for the last four years. > This Star Trek stuff is improbable because everything has to be coordinated somehow and waving your hand and saying magical future ai is the only proposal anyone ever has. Redistribution already occurs without the use of an AI.
  - ch4s3 2y ago
    > You cited them as examples of tasks that would be difficult to automate. Yes because they are. I specifically gave an example where a machine exists but it's impossible to use for the real world, and an example where economics generally prevent adoption. That gets to my whole point. > The pickers have been commercially deployed for the last four years. Yes narrowly, and in only a few places where there are extreme labor shortages. You are clearly misunderstanding me. > Redistribution already occurs without the use of an AI. I didn't make the claim that it didn't happen. I feel like you're willfully ignoring what I'm saying. These things are hard and rolling them out universally often doesn't work because it is either impractical or economically infeasible to automate things or you run up against regulatory/cultural/material issues. The best we can do is piecemeal progress where incentives align.
    - lurk2 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - ch4s3 2y ago
        > We've already established that you were wrong about that as these machines are in commercial deployment. No there are literally no companies using that sewing robot, you can't buy that shirt. > No, you're wrong. You clearly know nothing about this issue You're being very rude, this isn't twitter.