4 ms·

> It's like saying "we'll cure infectious diseases" Don't worry, I'm sure that's his next blog post. Right after Claude has finished solving famine and povert

> It's like saying "we'll cure infectious diseases" Don't worry, I'm sure that's his next blog post. Right after Claude has finished solving famine and poverty. ;)

Applejinx 2mo ago
Technically, killing everybody is one way of solving famine and poverty. How weird that all those humans seem not to trust the logic of their betters ;P
- subygan 2mo ago
  you're right. it coincidentally solves cancer and infectious diseases as well. the ultimate utopia
  - lesuorac 2mo ago
    Look, it's really simple we'll have 3 laws that the robots follow and nothing will go wrong.
    - kennywinker 2mo ago
      Except instead of bots that follow asimov’s three laws we’re getting bots that follow the ferengi rules of acquisition.
    - no-name-here 2mo ago
      Ah the 3 laws have edge cases? Actually our industry will just release bots with none of the 3 laws, including bots for military use where their whole purpose is the opposite of the 3 laws.
kennywinker 2mo ago
The solution to famine and poverty is not exactly a mystery. We have more than enough food on the planet for everyone, and we have the ability to deliver bombs or soldiers or amazon packages to anywhere in the world in days or hours. Combine excess food with amazon or army level logistics, and famine is gone. What people mean when they say “solve famine” is can we make people not starve without actually doing or changing anything - which is of course impossible.
- delis-thumbs-7e 2mo ago
  > Combine excess food with amazon or army level logistics, and famine is gone. We do this. Have you ever heard of UN World Food Programme? $14B funding in 2022 (since then dropped drastically, guess why). Has it solved famine? No. Would it solve famine if it got the funding it needs? Unlikely. Because you cannot just spend billions of dollars to send amazin food parcels across the world and expect that to fix climate change, draught, poverty, colonialism, racism, illiteracy, lack of education, and propably 100 other issues all contributing to the fact that we still have not end hunger. And no, AI won’t solve it either.
  - calvinmorrison 2mo ago
    > (since then dropped drastically, guess why). > Has it solved famine? No. Hoist by your own petard
    - kennywinker 2mo ago
      Assuming everything they said is true, how on earth is that a self-own? You know that saving millions of lives every year is better than NOT saving millions of lives, right? Just because something doesn't solve the problem 100% doesn't mean it's not VERY VERY good.
  - kennywinker 2mo ago
    The UN estimates it would cost $93 billion a year to end world hunger (https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/11/1166397 https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/11/1166397) So one would expect $14b/year would solve about 14/93 = 15% of world hunger. > The World Food Programme supports over 152 million people annually and delivers life-saving food assistance where needed most. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Food_Programme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Food_Programme) An estimated 757 million people are food insecure (https://www.who.int/news/item/24-07-2024-hunger-numbers-stubbornly-high-for-three-consecutive-years-as-global-crises-deepen--un-report https://www.who.int/news/item/24-07-2024-hunger-numbers-stub...) 152/757 = the world food program helps ~20% of people who are food insecure. That's well in the ballpark of the estimated 15% spend. If we spend that extra $93b, we'd be well within the range to actually stop world hunger. Yes, "climate change, draught, poverty, colonialism, racism, illiteracy, lack of education" are still issues. No, you don't have to solve those problems to feed people. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

> It's like saying "we'll cure infectious diseases" Don't worry, I'm sure that's his next blog post. Right after Claude has finished solving famine and poverty. ;)

Applejinx 2mo ago

Technically, killing everybody is one way of solving famine and poverty. How weird that all those humans seem not to trust the logic of their betters ;P

subygan 2mo ago
you're right. it coincidentally solves cancer and infectious diseases as well. the ultimate utopia
- lesuorac 2mo ago
  Look, it's really simple we'll have 3 laws that the robots follow and nothing will go wrong.
  - kennywinker 2mo ago
    Except instead of bots that follow asimov’s three laws we’re getting bots that follow the ferengi rules of acquisition.
  - no-name-here 2mo ago
    Ah the 3 laws have edge cases? Actually our industry will just release bots with none of the 3 laws, including bots for military use where their whole purpose is the opposite of the 3 laws.

kennywinker 2mo ago

The solution to famine and poverty is not exactly a mystery. We have more than enough food on the planet for everyone, and we have the ability to deliver bombs or soldiers or amazon packages to anywhere in the world in days or hours. Combine excess food with amazon or army level logistics, and famine is gone. What people mean when they say “solve famine” is can we make people not starve without actually doing or changing anything - which is of course impossible.

delis-thumbs-7e 2mo ago
> Combine excess food with amazon or army level logistics, and famine is gone. We do this. Have you ever heard of UN World Food Programme? $14B funding in 2022 (since then dropped drastically, guess why). Has it solved famine? No. Would it solve famine if it got the funding it needs? Unlikely. Because you cannot just spend billions of dollars to send amazin food parcels across the world and expect that to fix climate change, draught, poverty, colonialism, racism, illiteracy, lack of education, and propably 100 other issues all contributing to the fact that we still have not end hunger. And no, AI won’t solve it either.
- calvinmorrison 2mo ago
  > (since then dropped drastically, guess why). > Has it solved famine? No. Hoist by your own petard
  - kennywinker 2mo ago
    Assuming everything they said is true, how on earth is that a self-own? You know that saving millions of lives every year is better than NOT saving millions of lives, right? Just because something doesn't solve the problem 100% doesn't mean it's not VERY VERY good.
- kennywinker 2mo ago
  The UN estimates it would cost $93 billion a year to end world hunger (https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/11/1166397 https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/11/1166397) So one would expect $14b/year would solve about 14/93 = 15% of world hunger. > The World Food Programme supports over 152 million people annually and delivers life-saving food assistance where needed most. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Food_Programme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Food_Programme) An estimated 757 million people are food insecure (https://www.who.int/news/item/24-07-2024-hunger-numbers-stubbornly-high-for-three-consecutive-years-as-global-crises-deepen--un-report https://www.who.int/news/item/24-07-2024-hunger-numbers-stub...) 152/757 = the world food program helps ~20% of people who are food insecure. That's well in the ballpark of the estimated 15% spend. If we spend that extra $93b, we'd be well within the range to actually stop world hunger. Yes, "climate change, draught, poverty, colonialism, racism, illiteracy, lack of education" are still issues. No, you don't have to solve those problems to feed people. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.