3 ms·

An economics counter argument: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/plentiful-high-paying-jobs-in-the https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/plentiful-high-paying-jobs-in-...

An economics counter argument: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/plentiful-high-paying-jobs-in-the https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/plentiful-high-paying-jobs-in-... Also, my p(doom) is 1.0-epsilon under the status quo without AGI/ASI, due to old age and disease. Under some assumptions, self-interest says that I may as well roll the dice.

redox99 10mo ago
Maybe p(doom) without AGI is 1.0 in the long term, but I'll be dead by then. But AGI definitely increases the p(doom) within my lifetime.
- energy123 10mo ago
  I redefined p(doom) to mean your death rather than the demise of the species, which I probably should have clarified.
Epa095 10mo ago
Thanks for posting the article, it's really well written and worth reading! I think he raises some important points in the `“Possible” doesn’t mean “guaranteed”` section. His argument is based on comparative advantage, and he says "The key difference here is that everyone — every single person, every single AI, everyone — always has a comparative advantage at something!". This is why everyone in the world has a job and a decent salary today, just as humanity will in the future(!!). In reality it is not like this, and he talks about some of the reasons for this in the above mentioned paragraph. I also disagree massively with his discounting of the scenario where energy gets relocated to AI instead of food production. He paints that as unlikely, while I think it is almost inevitable. I don't necessarily think it will happen in one fell swoop with force, but it can definitely happen over a generation through pure market forces. The owners of AI just have more money, and will use this to buy energy. Cost of food will rise compared to the value of labour, aka cost of living will rise, and it will be harder and harder to sustain a family. Since we somehow think that taxing wealth is absurd, we will keep taxing labour. It seems to me that he tries to wave away the fact that if AI becomes much more productive than humans in everything, then economy predicts that it will be allocated the energy, not humans. And he waves this away with 'politics will save us', which I find unlikely.
- mlrtime 10mo ago
  Reading all this I can't help to think that we are REALLY bad about predicting societal impact on new technology. We are all scifi geeks (I am so generalizing) so I think we get a rush by doing it, but I think 99% of the predictions in this topic will be wrong.
momodotee 9mo ago
[dead]

redox99 10mo ago

Maybe p(doom) without AGI is 1.0 in the long term, but I'll be dead by then. But AGI definitely increases the p(doom) within my lifetime.

energy123 10mo ago
I redefined p(doom) to mean your death rather than the demise of the species, which I probably should have clarified.

Epa095 10mo ago

Thanks for posting the article, it's really well written and worth reading! I think he raises some important points in the `“Possible” doesn’t mean “guaranteed”` section. His argument is based on comparative advantage, and he says "The key difference here is that everyone — every single person, every single AI, everyone — always has a comparative advantage at something!". This is why everyone in the world has a job and a decent salary today, just as humanity will in the future(!!). In reality it is not like this, and he talks about some of the reasons for this in the above mentioned paragraph. I also disagree massively with his discounting of the scenario where energy gets relocated to AI instead of food production. He paints that as unlikely, while I think it is almost inevitable. I don't necessarily think it will happen in one fell swoop with force, but it can definitely happen over a generation through pure market forces. The owners of AI just have more money, and will use this to buy energy. Cost of food will rise compared to the value of labour, aka cost of living will rise, and it will be harder and harder to sustain a family. Since we somehow think that taxing wealth is absurd, we will keep taxing labour. It seems to me that he tries to wave away the fact that if AI becomes much more productive than humans in everything, then economy predicts that it will be allocated the energy, not humans. And he waves this away with 'politics will save us', which I find unlikely.

mlrtime 10mo ago
Reading all this I can't help to think that we are REALLY bad about predicting societal impact on new technology. We are all scifi geeks (I am so generalizing) so I think we get a rush by doing it, but I think 99% of the predictions in this topic will be wrong.

momodotee 9mo ago

[dead]