3 ms·

I agree with you, but no one listened back then, why would they ever think about listening now. Capital formation comes first before everything else, not the o

I agree with you, but no one listened back then, why would they ever think about listening now. Capital formation comes first before everything else, not the other way around, when you have nothing to trade that's of value it simply can't happen, and inevitable hyper-inflation/deflationary cycles begin which once started can't be stopped. These people think, survival is guaranteed, jobs are guaranteed, the how doesn't matter; it happens because some politician says it does; reality doesn't matter. That's the line and level of thinking we are dealing with here. How do you convince someone that if they do something, they and their children may die as a consequence; if they can't make that connection. Communication ceases being possible in a noisy medium at a certain point according to Shannon. Pretty sure we've crossed that point, and where we may have been able to discern and separate the garbage previously, now through mimicry its all but impossible. Intelligent people don't waste their efforts on lost causes. People make their own decisions, and they and their children will pay for the consequences of those choices; even if they didn't realize that was the choice they were making at the time they made it.

munksbeer 1y ago
> I agree with you, but no one listened back then, why would they ever think about listening now. Because we lead vastly better lives today than 100 years ago, when everyone was also raging about technology stealing jobs. The economy has to adapt to technology changes, there is no other way. It is a self healing system. If technology removes a lot of jobs, then new jobs are created. It has to be this way, don't you see?
- trod1234 1y ago
  It can be a self-healing system, and capitalism is generally self-healing, but the former is not necessarily the case in all economic systems. There is a critical point where factors, and producers leave the market because requirements cannot be met in profit in terms of purchasing power (invariant to inflation). You might think those parties are all that there is, but that's not the case, there is a third-party, the state and its apparatus. With money-printing, any winner chosen by the state becomes its apparatus. Money printing takes many forms but the most common is debt, more accurately non-reserve debt. That third-entity is not bound by profit constraints and outcompetes rising in the wake of the destruction it causes, and this is not self-healing, its self-sustaining, and slow, and it does collapse given sufficient time. New jobs aren't being created in sufficient volumes to provide for the population. If anything, the jobs have been removed en-masse on the mere perception that AI can replace people. You seem to rely heavily on fallacy in your reasoning. Specifically, survivorship bias. Things are being done that cannot be undone. There are fundamental limits, after which the structures fail. This is what is coming.
  - munksbeer 1y ago
    > This is what is coming. You're saying I rely on fallacy, survivorship bias, but you have no way of knowing what is coming, and yet you state it so authoritatively. I resort to evidence from history, because these same arguments happen decade after decade, and the doom scenario has not manifested yet. I also find the anti-AI view narrow minded. You're only able to imagine one scenario, the dystopian scenario. And yet none of know this is the likely outcome. It could well be that AI actually does increase the means of productivity, we invent new medical cures, we invent new ways to grow food, we clean up our energy generation, work becomes more optional as governments (who desperately want people to keep electing them) find ways of redistributing all the newly created wealth. I don't know which will happen, and neither does anyone else.
    - righthand 1y ago
      This is naïve, the government and corporations are already working towards the dystopian result. Just because we don’t “know” doesn’t mean people can’t make an educated guess. You need people to put Llms on the good path before you can say the bad path won’t happen. Right now people are loyal to corporations that offer it, that’s the bad path.
      - trod1234 1y ago
        Its like predicting avalanches in avalanche prone areas. You may not know the individual particle interactions and forces that will inevitably set the next avalanche off, but you know it will happen based on factors that increase the likelihood dramatically. For example the event of an avalanche increases the more snowpack there is, and it goes to zero when snowpack is gone. The same could be said of LLMs. You know corporations will do absolutely anything even destroy their business model, so long as they make more money in the short term. John Deere is a perfect example of this, and Mexico just finally took action because we couldn't, that culminated in ~14bn drop in capex on Wall Street for the the stock. It was over 10 years in the making, but it happened. The more concentrated the marketshare to decisionmaking, the greater the damage, and the more impact bad decisions have compared to good decisions. You tread water until you drown.

munksbeer 1y ago

> I agree with you, but no one listened back then, why would they ever think about listening now. Because we lead vastly better lives today than 100 years ago, when everyone was also raging about technology stealing jobs. The economy has to adapt to technology changes, there is no other way. It is a self healing system. If technology removes a lot of jobs, then new jobs are created. It has to be this way, don't you see?

trod1234 1y ago
It can be a self-healing system, and capitalism is generally self-healing, but the former is not necessarily the case in all economic systems. There is a critical point where factors, and producers leave the market because requirements cannot be met in profit in terms of purchasing power (invariant to inflation). You might think those parties are all that there is, but that's not the case, there is a third-party, the state and its apparatus. With money-printing, any winner chosen by the state becomes its apparatus. Money printing takes many forms but the most common is debt, more accurately non-reserve debt. That third-entity is not bound by profit constraints and outcompetes rising in the wake of the destruction it causes, and this is not self-healing, its self-sustaining, and slow, and it does collapse given sufficient time. New jobs aren't being created in sufficient volumes to provide for the population. If anything, the jobs have been removed en-masse on the mere perception that AI can replace people. You seem to rely heavily on fallacy in your reasoning. Specifically, survivorship bias. Things are being done that cannot be undone. There are fundamental limits, after which the structures fail. This is what is coming.
- munksbeer 1y ago
  > This is what is coming. You're saying I rely on fallacy, survivorship bias, but you have no way of knowing what is coming, and yet you state it so authoritatively. I resort to evidence from history, because these same arguments happen decade after decade, and the doom scenario has not manifested yet. I also find the anti-AI view narrow minded. You're only able to imagine one scenario, the dystopian scenario. And yet none of know this is the likely outcome. It could well be that AI actually does increase the means of productivity, we invent new medical cures, we invent new ways to grow food, we clean up our energy generation, work becomes more optional as governments (who desperately want people to keep electing them) find ways of redistributing all the newly created wealth. I don't know which will happen, and neither does anyone else.
  - righthand 1y ago
    This is naïve, the government and corporations are already working towards the dystopian result. Just because we don’t “know” doesn’t mean people can’t make an educated guess. You need people to put Llms on the good path before you can say the bad path won’t happen. Right now people are loyal to corporations that offer it, that’s the bad path.
    - trod1234 1y ago
      Its like predicting avalanches in avalanche prone areas. You may not know the individual particle interactions and forces that will inevitably set the next avalanche off, but you know it will happen based on factors that increase the likelihood dramatically. For example the event of an avalanche increases the more snowpack there is, and it goes to zero when snowpack is gone. The same could be said of LLMs. You know corporations will do absolutely anything even destroy their business model, so long as they make more money in the short term. John Deere is a perfect example of this, and Mexico just finally took action because we couldn't, that culminated in ~14bn drop in capex on Wall Street for the the stock. It was over 10 years in the making, but it happened. The more concentrated the marketshare to decisionmaking, the greater the damage, and the more impact bad decisions have compared to good decisions. You tread water until you drown.