4 ms·

There is one major difference from previous technological advancements: AI is going to hit many if not most sectors at the same time. And it's not like hitting

There is one major difference from previous technological advancements: AI is going to hit many if not most sectors at the same time. And it's not like hitting just one sector has ever been gentle: machines entering manufacturing caused an 80 years slump in British occupation rates and salaries. Machines entering agricultural fields by the end of 1800s caused a similar slump in work conditions in Europe that really ended by the 1960s/1970s (depending on the country). Automation + AI will keep taking more blue collar jobs at speed while also taking more and more knowledge workers out of jobs. Seriously, at no point in history we've seen a single technology threatening so many sectors at the same time. And people telling you "but the workers always recovered" keep ignoring that those recoveries sound good when they were not the ones impacted, and that these recoveries can take a lifetime.

purplemoonx 2mo ago
Not at the rate it is currently gatekept - it will be prohibitively expensive for most people to use AI and AI-based robotics. It's already out of reach for most small businesses to justify spending on it, and some LLM consumer plans are going for $200/mo. If a chatbot is $200/mo, what's a full human AI robot going to cost to do general labor? $100k/year? And let me guess, you have to replace it with newer models each year? Companies will ask: "What's the point?" in losing the people resource, accountability, and everything else in exchange for the same cost of labor (or more). AI tech needs to be freed up so we can innovate with it, like the Internet was. It's currently too locked down and the K-shape thing only works with goods and assets. I don't think you can lock the majority of people out of technology (and it be as good) the way you can lock people out of home ownership (and it improves home value). If the plan is that only a minority of ultra-wealthy have the best technology and everyone else is some underclass who can't afford it, then the technology just won't be very good or useful. It will be like the $200 chatbot or an Apple Watch or a Tesla. Some specific kind of wealthy geek will get it, but it won't be that world changing. If individuals and companies can't meaningfully save time and money without significant additional engineering, then it'll be like flying cars or robotic bartenders and the dream of displacing all people (lol) just won't materialize.

purplemoonx 2mo ago

Not at the rate it is currently gatekept - it will be prohibitively expensive for most people to use AI and AI-based robotics. It's already out of reach for most small businesses to justify spending on it, and some LLM consumer plans are going for $200/mo. If a chatbot is $200/mo, what's a full human AI robot going to cost to do general labor? $100k/year? And let me guess, you have to replace it with newer models each year? Companies will ask: "What's the point?" in losing the people resource, accountability, and everything else in exchange for the same cost of labor (or more). AI tech needs to be freed up so we can innovate with it, like the Internet was. It's currently too locked down and the K-shape thing only works with goods and assets. I don't think you can lock the majority of people out of technology (and it be as good) the way you can lock people out of home ownership (and it improves home value). If the plan is that only a minority of ultra-wealthy have the best technology and everyone else is some underclass who can't afford it, then the technology just won't be very good or useful. It will be like the $200 chatbot or an Apple Watch or a Tesla. Some specific kind of wealthy geek will get it, but it won't be that world changing. If individuals and companies can't meaningfully save time and money without significant additional engineering, then it'll be like flying cars or robotic bartenders and the dream of displacing all people (lol) just won't materialize.