This is what AI was fucking promoted as being for! The utopia where machines do all our work and we receive universal basic income to enjoy our freedoms.
Taking away work was exactly the premise it was sold under.
The promise is that it'll make producing goods and services more efficient, like just about every other invention in human history. As always, that does put some people out of work in the short term, but it doesn't increase unemployment over the long term, and it makes all of society richer, not just the few who invented it.
You need to end scarcity to end money. That means dilithium crystals, replicators and virtually infinite energy.
Real basic income will be a lot less like Star Trek and a lot more like The Expanse.
Also, revolutions are rarely ever started by the lower class. They're always started by the middle tier of society, enraging those helpful idiots lower than them to attack those above them. They end up with many dead and many suffering. Those who cry out for revolution have never seen the horrors of war.
> “I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell. … You people of the South don’t know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don’t know what you’re talking about. War is a terrible thing! … War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”
> You need to end scarcity to end money. That means dilithium crystals, replicators and virtually infinite energy.
That will never happen and capitalism is pretty creative in creating artificial scarcities.
You are far too naive if you think there is a non-bloody way to basically remove the wall between the classes, and that those in power will not try to do everything they can to keep their wealth and "higher lifestyle".
>This is what AI was fucking promoted as being for! The utopia where machines do all our work and we receive universal basic income to enjoy our freedoms.
No one promised any utopia of any sort. The only promise was that AI would put people out of work. The rest is just some naive Star Trek bullshit that was never on the table.
I can tell you that almost every single enthusiastic proponent of the technology I've ever spoken to has pretty much guaranteed this is where it takes us... But correct, its naïve as hell.
I think the future is people's AI agents evaluating the content generated by other people's AI agents and vice versa.
What the humans would see would be what is filtered up to them after all of this evaluation is done. And content generation would be the reverse. People would provide a seed of an idea and then their agents would turn that into potentially useful work.
There are a lot of things you can do to make yourself healthier (both physically and mentally) if you have an organized life and you allot time for enriching activity, whether that be recreation or learning a language or learning a new instrument. The key is to be stable enough in your life where you can comfortably alott that time.
For me personally, this kind of stability is always out of reach as I'm always frantically trying to reach the next rung in the career ladder.
Are you seriously claiming that as a fact? You really believe 12 minutes is too long for a bot or something? Because that has to be the lamest excuse I’ve ever heard.
Measuring bot activity became harder after the API changes (I wonder why!), but there’s been some attempts at finding ways to estimate bot activity. All those measures are compatible with increases in bot activity, and incompatible with bot decline.
This is not what I personally believe. This is what experts in web analystics believe. Bots don't behave like that. They don't simulate human browsing activity by staying on a site for 10 to 12 minutes, entering the site directly (through url or bookmark), and browsing 14 pages during their visit.
Bots are perfectly capable of simulating long user sessions. Many large-volume scrapping traffic for example simulate lots of long persistent user sessions.
He was the chief engineer and head of product at SpaceX and Tesla for over 20 years, respectively.
On Falcon 1 and 9 he worked directly on major components of the vehicles.
In Tesla, he was heavily involved in the design of every single product they came out with. He also micromanaged Model 3 assembly automation in 2017-18.
The slowdown of nuclear power was led on the activist front by national environmental organizations like the Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation, as well as the Union of Concerned Scientists. Individuals like Jane Fonda and Ralph Nader also played a major role.
After the Three Mile Island Accident, Carter convened the Kemeny Commission which led to a substantial expansion of the complexity of complying with NRC's regulations, which in turn drove up costs and contributed greatly to the slowdown of nuclear power expansion.
The anti-nuclear drive was in many ways similar to the current anti-data center drive.
Going off on a tangent here: for over a decade, ever since I got an inkling of the power of neural networks, I've argued that privacy is the key to maintaining a broad diffusion of wealth in the modern electronically networked world.
What distinguishes human intelligence from LLM intelligence is largely information that the latter hasn't mopped up. So the information that the former is uniquely privy to is what gives it economic value.
I'm of the opinion that billionaires are good for the economy. Wages in the US are about double what they are in the EU.
There are some aspects in which the EU provides a higher quality of life, but those have nothing to do with tax rates or the concentration of billionaires. They're more related to things like good city planning allowing for pedestrian and biking-friendly neighbourhoods (E.g. 50% of commutes to work in Copenhagen are by bike, where in the U.S. it's less than 1%.), old cohesive cultures, and better, more developed culinary traditions.
The billionaires here are just a scapegoat because the rent-seeking parties need a target that is naturally unsympathetic for the public to direct its anger toward. The National Education Association is the largest union in the US with three million members. 99% of its campaign contributions go to the Democrats. I haven't seen a single policy that it advocates that is actually good for society. If you look at the jurisdictions where the teachers' unions hold the most sway, they make the least efficient use of public money. New York spends three times more than Florida per pupil on public education and has slightly worse academic performance.
The investors don't manufacture those higher quality goods and services - their workers do. The investors collect economic rent from the worker's outputs.
The capital that the workers operate is an extension of the investor. The investor is an active participant making their capital available for the productive enterprise.
And if the investors collect economic rent from the workers' output, then the workers collect economic rent every time an investor hires them for a project in which the investor loses money.
But under the standard Economics definition of "economic rent", a positive investment return from a project in which a person risked investment capital and the worker provided labor in exchange for a guaranteed wage is not economic rent that was extracted by the investor.
This doesn't scrap public review. It scraps federal mandates requiring public review. The states can decide for themselves if a public review is required. This is a good thing. As the ability for highly motivated activist groups to veto projects is a major strategic impediment for the economic expansion of the United States.
reply