4 ms·
You say it like it's a bad thing.
by eru 1mo ago
You say it like it's a bad thing.
- JoshTriplett 1mo agoReplacing people leaves no room for people.
- eru 1mo agoEven aggregate employment of translators has held up well in the US. Even though machines do a much better job of what used to be the most basic job of a translator.
- user43928 1mo agoOut of 3.5 billion employed people globally, only 10% are professionals. Do you really think making labor obsolete and giving humans back their time is such a bad thing?
- JoshTriplett 1mo agoWhen cars made horses obsolete, it didn't go so well for horses. In the short term, AI is disempowering the vast majority of people in favor of a very small subset. In the also way too short term, AI is disempowering all people.
- user43928 1mo agoI have a more optimistic outlook on the abilities of our governments as well as the motivations of rich people. I believe we will distribute the fruits of AI's labor at the very least to the extend where everyone can live comfortably. No one has an interest in putting large parts of society on the streets in some sort of dystopia.
- JoshTriplett 1mo agoYou are assuming that people remain in control.
- Marha01 1mo agoAnd you are assuming they don't remain in control. Which of you is right? We don't know yet, but I don't find the arguments of card-carrying doomers any more convincing that those of card-carrying singularitarian utopians. Historically though, technological improvement has lead to large increases of living standards for the overwhelming majority of people, so I think that past trends support the utopian view more than the doomer view.
- JoshTriplett 1mo agoThe anthropic principle applies here: anyone warning about an existential risk will by necessity never have precedent to point to. I am not assuming humans don't remain in control, but rather, I am not axiomatically assuming there's any inherent reason we will.
- Marha01 1mo ago> The anthropic principle applies here: anyone warning about an existential risk will by necessity never have precedent to point to. We have precedents of people warning about existential risks in the past, when the warnings turned out to be false, or overblown. In some cases, such overblown warnings led to serious negatives for society (demonization of nuclear power).
- JoshTriplett 1mo agoYes, that is precisely my point. Any timeline with humans flourishing will never have a past history of a correct prediction of existential risk, unless you're willing to pay attention to the counterfactuals. Those counterfactuals are important, though. We do have a history of averted disasters, albeit not as large. Ozone hole, Y2K, think about things that seemed overblown at the time, and consider whether they were actually overblown or whether there was a concerted effort to successfully avert them.
- fn-mote 1mo ago> I have a more optimistic outlook on the abilities of our governments as well as the motivations of rich people. Wow. Only on HN. Also apparently not from the US? Or Russia? This does not reflect what I see in my government.
- eru 1mo ago> When cars made horses obsolete, it didn't go so well for horses. I'd guess horses today have on average a better life than back then.
- JoshTriplett 1mo agoThe comparatively few that still exist, perhaps.
- Anonyneko 1mo agoI think the concern is that humans who are given back their time won't have any means to make use of that time, or even possibly means to survive. The resources will be concentrated in the hands of the few more than ever.
- Marha01 1mo ago> Replacing people leaves no room for people. I am much more than my job. If I receive basic income, please replace my job ASAP! And if I don't receive a basic income in a world where AI is capable of replacing all human jobs, then the problem is not AI, but the powers that be.
- rvba 1mo agoYou know your basic income will be some minumum to make you shut up, while the owner class will own everything?
- eru 1mo agoHasn't happened so far.
- Marha01 1mo agoAs long as it's enough to afford my current living standard, I don't care. Let Musk own the entire Mars, as long as I receive enough to live relatively comfortably and don't have to work anymore. And if I don't receive enough, then again: the problem is not AI, but powers that be. And there are various solutions for that... and none of them are helped by me being anti-AI.
- swader999 1mo agoYou won't have any real power in that scenario, you'll just be shut off.
- Marha01 1mo agoHuman-level AI hosted locally will give everyone much more power and wealth than they have currently. I don't care if I will be shut off from Musk's Mars lair. And Musk has no reason to care that robots take good care of me here on Earth, when he has his Martian utopia.
- azan_ 1mo agoWho will pay for services performed by AI? How will they make money?