Marha01

6 ms·

61.
by Marha01 2mo ago
> I suspect these things will be only available to the already-quite-wealthy. Initially, sure. But the price will come down in time, just like with any other technology in history.
62.
by Marha01 2mo ago
Tell me you are not an introvert without telling me... I don't want a person I barely know regularly going all over my apartment. What if they discover... nevermind. A robot, on the other hand? Hell yeah!
63.
by Marha01 2mo ago
> Weren't we just saying money was gonna be obsolete? Land is an inherently limited resource, so some kind of money might still exist for that, even after the singularity. The point is: whatever process exists to obtain land after t
64.
by Marha01 2mo ago
Catching a murderer is much, *much* easier than catching someone using a modern AI model to generate code, especially if they actually read it and fix occasional LLMisms, and not just vibecode from the hip. The societal damage is also infin
65.
by Marha01 2mo ago
> So, the plan is that AI companies will steal the mines and land from their current owners? Like, you plan to use those robots to beat up the owners and take their stuff? What? Why the hell would they need to steal or beat up people? Th
66.
by Marha01 2mo ago
Robots can mine minerals and build power plants. They can also perform work with the aim to earn money to buy more land.
67.
by Marha01 2mo ago
> You are severely underestimating how much free stuff would 349,163,268 of American citizens need to make a small difference. You don't need to persuade all of them. > To achieve that, they would need to steal farms from current
68.
by Marha01 2mo ago
> They will still need land, energy and resources. Human-level robots can mine resources and build power plants. Perhaps you need some initial land to build your first robotic base, but robots can also perform work to earn you money to b
69.
by Marha01 2mo ago
> No they wont, because producing requires more then just "intellingence". What more does it require? Spoiler: now you tell me what more is needed, and I would then tell you how to use intelligent robots to obtain it.
70.
by Marha01 2mo ago
> Like they will magically create metal and food from nothing? Not from nothing. How do humans create metal and food? Mining and farming. You ask your human-level robots to do the same. Human-level robots can by definition do everything
71.
by Marha01 2mo ago
> I don't know why people keep asking this question Asking how do you enforce a policy that is practically unenforceable is a legitimate question.
72.
by Marha01 2mo ago
> ditch diggers AGI-level robots can do this. > prostitutes, models, acrobats, painters, etc You have a point. Perhaps I should have said "overwhelming majority of human jobs", instead of "all human jobs".
73.
by Marha01 2mo ago
> Where AI companies will be (deservely) the hate targets. That depends on what those companies do in response. Giving away robot-produced stuff for free could quicky earn them praise, instead of hate. If human-level robots enable massiv
74.
by Marha01 2mo ago
You are still thinking in terms of monetary economics about a situation where money is no longer needed. In a monetary economy, if you need X, you need the money to buy it. In a post-AGI economy, if you need X, you ask your human-level robo
75.
by Marha01 2mo ago
That is a very good question, perhaps without an objective answer. But it's definitely not a 9-5 job, at least for me.
76.
by Marha01 2mo ago
Yes, but I think we should separate human economic value from the true purpose of our existence. If AI can replace us in economically valuable tasks, we will have no choice but to do so. The economic value part should be looked at objective
77.
by Marha01 2mo ago
> If you hand me two sheets of paper, one of them containing instructions and another containing data, I'll have a pretty easy time keeping them separate You think. But there are ways around that. How about a credible extortion mess
78.
by Marha01 2mo ago
> Firstly, AI is not going to take away all jobs Human-level AGI is by definition able to take away all human jobs. > Secondly, we already know what happens when sectors face mass unemployment from the 1980s, when steel and coal worke
79.
by Marha01 2mo ago
That does not follow. The argument about the possibility of artificial intelligence makes absolutely no claims about the purpose of human or artificial intelligence. One is a claim about "is", another is a claim about "ough
80.
by Marha01 2mo ago
> Creating new humans is easy (and fun) This could not be further from the truth. Creating a new educated, competent human takes ~25 years, and significant costs and resources. AGI can be just copy-pasted at essentially no cost. Even a r
81.
by Marha01 2mo ago
> Nobody benefits by having less time to adapt Not exactly true. If AI goes from 0 to 100 quickly (human level AGI in a few years), we will all lose our jobs together and will have to confront this fact. There is no ignoring such massive
82.
by Marha01 2mo ago
> Which is almost never the case. Well, the topic is about AI..
83.
by Marha01 2mo ago
> until we stop mixing up instructions with data Is such a thing even possible with a generally intelligent system processing content with unlimited diversity?
84.
by Marha01 3mo ago
>nuclear weapons + nuclear energy (luckily we had no nuclear war, but benefits here are not worth risks) >AI in general and LLM specifically so far >smartphones in general and social media specifically >maybe internet overall, m
85.
by Marha01 3mo ago
> is it export if they take control of the entire island manufacturing it. If.
86.
by Marha01 3mo ago
Not a lot of lifting? The standard of living increase for the average person has been substantial. Poverty metrics are falling all over the world.
87.
by Marha01 3mo ago
Corporations colluding with the government is nothing new, it happened since both corporations and government existed, yet standard of living keeps increasing.
88.
by Marha01 3mo ago
It is, if they get cheap enough.
89.
by Marha01 3mo ago
Those are just specific applications of some technology, not comparable to AI in general.
90.
by Marha01 3mo ago
This is just nostalgia. Most things are objectively better today.

More ›