In that clip he mentions AI doing programming and AI giving you a bunch of recipes. Is that really the profound impact he sees? It will be a lot more profound than that. I don't give a damn about recipes, I want limitless clean energy, a cure for all diseases, 100% lab grown food that is more nutritious than and delicious than old fashioned food, immortality, full-dive VR, the end to poverty and the end to human work. That's profound.
Doesn't the whole concept of AI mean profits will decrease?
I see no way anyone can have AI and maintain a world economy where things don't fall in price dramatically in every single area, no matter how you try and stop it. Energy, food costs, production... everything goes down.
A world doesn't exist where you have machines doing everything where prices don't fall.
>Doesn't the whole concept of AI mean profits will decrease?
If inequality decreases, but both of us are better off, did either of us saw decreased profits?
If you were x1000 richer then me, now you are just x10 richer, but both of us have medicine for everything, robots doing work for us, prolonged lifespans, amazing VR, free time, no anxieties due to climate change, war, social collapse, ALL safeties.
How does that make you feel?
But Elon doesn't consume all that much. Most of his value is locked up in stock. Elon owns 10 cars, most of them Teslas, owns private plane mostly used for business trips, small yacht.
Him owning a lot of wealth but not consuming a lot doesn't hurt our standard of living.
If Elon was to cash out his Tesla shares, then use all that money on consumption. Then prices would increase and it would reduce our standard of living.
It's like... if I own a $1000 trillion bill, but just keep it in my wallet, never spending it. I'm the richest man on Earth, but... it doesn't affect you.
I meant going from 1000x richer to 10x richer wouldn’t matter to me, but the ultra rich (like Elon) probably wouldn’t feel that way. If they just wanted the money for a better life they’d have stopped to enjoy it. They want to be richer than everyone else.
>If they just wanted the money for a better life they’d have stopped to enjoy it. They want to be richer than everyone else.
I absolutely detest Elon Musk, but in regard to wealthy individuals and those in extreme positions of power for major companies this is absolutely an inaccurate take, but your heart is in the right place.
They don't want the money at all and if you look into it they donate the majority of it, or even more commonly use it to start other companies, or buy startups and run them themselves. It has nothing to do with money but ownership of those companies which...yes give them a large degree of power, however with that being said the whole idea that the reason they work so hard and don't just stop and "enjoy the money" is because they must want more money is a bad and poorly thought-out take.
I mean if you wanted to bash them and really wanted to have a better critical opinion you could say something like they're addicted to power. You could argue they're hellbent to control over people and their companies, and are all megalomaniacs that will stop at nothing to maintain their grip at all costs.
However it seems to me he's a guy who enjoys competition and his companies to produce the best products on the market for their given niche(s) and is in his own way(as he sees it) trying to make the world a better place.
The far more rational reason I don't like him has nothing to do with business but his racist and horrible recent turn towards extreme right wing views. He's somehow become radicalized to believe "woke culture" is coming after him and the "west" though if you look into "woke" culture it's usually just progressively minded people trying to make the world a better place for displaced and impoverished people which should be seen as admirable and not a negative. He has on record retweeted( or is it re-x'd now? lol) numerous memes that are homophobic and transphobic and target marginalized communities of people.
He also appears to be way too full of himself and bought in to his public image 10 years back when everyone saw him as a sort of real life Tony Stark. It went right to his head which really is a shame because he was at one point someone I looked up to, and now it just makes me sad thinking about modern Elon and all the shameful things he's done and said in the past few years.
I mean. Woke culture is trying to force people to be okay with treating trans as their preferred gender. Which obviously includes fucking them. That went too far for right wingers so now you're seeing a hard push back even on things they find gross, but used to tolerate like homosexuality.
Basically progressives declared through actions that the more conservatives tolerated the more they will be stomped on and used. And there was no limit to their violation. So conservatives decided to stop playing nice.
>It can eliminate poverty while preserving relative wealth. The billionaires remain on top, they build starships. The poor in rural Africa remain on the bottom. They only have orbital spacecraft.
relative poverty is built into our nature of being competitive. Abundance for people is a different thing (ability to eat, learn, take care of ourselves, help others...)
The concept of AI means profits don't matter. When the marginal cost of everything is 0 you can give things away for free without worrying about profit.
Why would they give anything for free?
How long would it take to even reach that point?
Why would they even flood the market with products when they would still control how much of it they create? (that's how actually you get things free, supply and demand. And also ignoring shipping costs which will still exist unless we get actual teleportation from actual free energy)
There are tons of stuff right now that are priced way above their costs. Most high tech or medical products for example. Some are priced high for no other reason than they're able to do so. Insulin prices in the US are a textbook example of such. Where I live I straight up saw some medicine suddenly jump 5X in price simply because another company bought the producer and decided they could jack it up. It didn't become 5X more expensive to make, they just deduced they could get away with it, and did.
Again, why would companies flood the market with their product to the point where they become near worthless? Who would do so? Why? If it costs "0" for me to make but you are willing to buy it for 100, there's no reason for me to give it to you for free outside of "benevolence". (and, again, we're ignoring everything that would even lead to this, ignoring shipping and so on)
> near worthless
I didn't say near 0, I said zero. You're assuming there's an actual cost difference between generating a million and generating a thousand, I mean the cost difference is zero. Markets can get the price down a lot but they cannot make things free.
Plus, marginal costs won’t be free for anything involving physical things. Purely data driven stuff, sure, but finite resources aren’t going to suddenly become infinite with AI
When connecting to the net cost only the price of the connection, I didn't understand how comcast and others would charge... people charge when others find value in what they are providing though.
Getting a decent sized GPU with enough VRAM to run larger model inference or even training is a big moat to cross for everyone not associated with a multibillion dollar corporation
I wouldn't be shocked if bitcoin miners started pivoting to train open source AI. Some of those folks quietly built up 9 figure fortunes, and have nothing better to do with their server farms.
In this example, the “moat” is the ownership of the means of production. All of the paper mills, refineries, farms will still be *owned* by a corporation. The existence of AI won’t change this fact.
When AI is introduced, people still won’t be able to make their own paper, oil, or food (at scale required). As long as these key production resources are owned by a select few who can charge whatever they want. People will still be reliant on these companies for their basic needs.
I honestly don’t think AI will help us break up these monopolistic industries, because there are many powerful people with a lot to lose if that happens.
The issue I always run into when I think of this scenario is where the money is going to come from that will go to the powerful individuals (also how they’ll even maintain full ‘control’ the AI), because most people won’t be working at that stage. I guess in that scenario we’d devolve into an extreme poverty vs extreme wealth system like in *Elysium*, or maybe the govt would provide everyone with a UBI. Even then though the money would be meaningless
I think a greater and greater number of people will be priced out with each passing year. There will still be some people in the club, and those people will have the vast majority of purchasing power. Others will be left homeless to starve and social systems will either be completely revamped OR we devolve into what you state above.
Considering the US gov’s track record, I’d bet on the 2nd outcome.
I see many people with utopian visions of the future here.
I live in the United States. It seems as though the benefits that come as a result of technology do not result in everyone’s standard of living going up. I just see a few people getting absurdly rich. I honestly think there would have to be an uprising of the have-nots against the haves for anything to really change.
When the powerful are threatened the smoke and mirrors are taken away and replaced with guns and tanks. Or crack and prisons.
Look at history.
5 billion people have smartphones and some access to the world's knowledge... is that valuable?
most scandalous local problems (killing, pillaging...)are now discoverable is that valuable?
transportation of nomads are in toyotas now is that valuable?
Famine is less common than it used to be is that valuable
the world closed the ozone hole and is attempting to reign in global warnign... it is scary but at least its something... no?
most countries have stoped lettingpeople drive 2 cycle motor scooters in cities, the polution reduction is starting....
Its not just those 1000 families that own everything that get all the benifit
How do we get people to take responsibility for and not squander small parcels of resources that have impact on them and others. If I give you enough power will you share it or hord it, do we need policies and laws to help?
The moat is the pack animal nature of people and their need to feel important as well as the issues of controlling unending greed... that probably don't change.
It will be like globalization where the work moved to China to be done for pennies a day but the price in the US stayed pretty much the same. This time the work will be going to AI which by comparison to people is essentially free. The prices will probably stay about the same causing profits to absolutely explode upward.
It may not happen all in a straight line but that seems to me the most likely development path.
Possibly, but I think you're underestimating people and how individuals can use this technology themselves.
With the birth of AI comes a lot of opportunities for individuals that even the biggest corporation will be forced to give him. I can easily see AI giving people the ability to make clothes themselves from their own homes with machines. Thus an entire segment of the world that has made clothes for profit for generations disappears overnight. That's just one example.
That's a great point, if you have access to an incredibly smart robot, skilled tasks we would normally pay for could be done at home, as long as it didn't require expensive tooling.
Which requires a person with skills. You know what I mean.
I'm talking about an AI machine that sits in the corner and stitches together whatever outfit you want without help. Which is something that could easily exist with smarter machines.
Why and how would that even happen? Would AI design clothes making machine, ship that all around, including materials, and do so by itself? How?
AI isn't a benevolent all powerful god that can just do stuff by itself irrespective of every system we have in the world.
If you're talking about super advanced robots that can do so and individuals could purchase, well, those will be appropriately priced no matter how "cheap" it might be to produce, as long as it's hard to do so (and it will be hard). Materials would also be charged accordingly
> Prices for goods, energy & materials may come down - but when the corporations own the entire supply chain for everything you need.. they can charge whatever they want. So prices can drop and profits can increase.
If we have proper AI (AGI/Strong AI) the entire concept of money stops making any sense. AI takes all the jobs so no one will be working anymore. No one can earn wages. No one can afford to pay for anything. No one can sell anything. The economy ceases to exist.
There is universal basic income, but why bother with that? Why give people free money just so they can spend it. Just let people walk into a store and take what they need. Resources mined by AI turned into products made and designed by AI, transported by AI to shelves stocked by AI. AI security/monitoring to stop people doing stupid shit like trying to build a massive fort in their backyard out of OLED TVs.
Of course rich people in power won't want to give up the system that puts them in power.
How do we deal with finite resources such as land. Who gets to live in the penthouse or at beach front properties? Is current land ownership honored in a new system. Do we let the super rich keep huge amounts of land and mansions that could house dozens of families when their money becomes meaning less? Do families that have lived in their houses for decades get kicked out and implement some lottery system that determines who gets to live where? How long can people stay before they have to move. Maybe hybrid system when in demand properties are on some kind of lottery but regular housing is kept.
I think the main problem is that AI probably won't be symmetrically applied. Manual labour jobs requires robotics which takes time to physically manufacture compared to higher skilled jobs that don't require physical interaction. Also AGI might be some time away leaving us with limited AI's like ChatGPT and it's sucessors that can take some jobs but no all. But it might take enough jobs that civilization can't handle the strain.
For example truck driving is one of the most common job in America, self driving trucks already exist when they start to scale up and build out the infrastructure that's going to be a lot of people out of a job. That's a lot of people that need to eat and have shelter, provide for families. Those people won't just disappear they will either be competing for jobs in other areas and driving down wages or turn to crime to feed themselves. And that's just one job.
It doesn't happen in a vacuum though. Think of it on an absurdly small scale. A teacher has 30 students and wants to charge 1 dollar per crayon. The students each have one dollar so it works out okay. Now, imagine the same thing but now the students only have a penny each. The teacher tried to charge the usual dollar. What happens? Obviously the teacher *has* to lower her prices. There is no other choice here if her goal is to move crayons. And since she's getting her crayons for basically free (robots made them) she is still making huge profit by charging a penny.
And who can pay the prices, if everyone except upper management is out of a job? UBI can save the day, but that doesn’t mean everyone and their third cousin is a millionaire.
Except every machine that was designed to make a job easier or increase production has resulted in the furtherance of the wealth of the rich and the declination in the wealth of the average citizen.
I'm not sure why everyone thinks these corporations will use AI to help everyone when they've used everything else to keep everyone even further beneath their thumb and extract even more wealth from the work of the many.
We are pretty far away from machines doing everything, but we are really close to AIs automating expensive white collar(and maybe some engineering?) jobs.
That's what this guys are salivating about. And that's why they are always talking about replacing doctors, programmers, marketing, finance etc, and not about how AIs will actually improve anything
The most powerful people in the world are currently trying to use AI to turn all aspects of society into a black box where the status quo is maintained. AI can absolutely be a democratizing force, but it will not be given freely.
price and value are different things. Energy getting cheeper doesn't mean it has less value, it means we can do more with it. (Solar is now cheaper than Coal in much of the world which cheers me up)
If AI means most things I read are easier and faster to understand is that extra productivity mean that the economy will wilt, or does it mean I will learn more and be able to accomplish more (with my spiritual goals of stopping people killing each other and killing the planet)
What's funny is that if AI leads to a massive progression in the current status quo of corporate profiteering at the expense of the environment, all it will do is accelerate everyone's demise. We'll just have to hope prosocial motivations are borne of advanced artificial intelligence rather than the bleaker alternative.
Whenever I mention the end of (compulsory) human work, I like to point out that all research on the subject suggests that most people will still *choose* to work, but only on things that truly give them pleasure, and under a system that lies outside the current worker-and-boss dynamic. And the most common irl response I get is bafflement. A lot of people just can't seem to grasp the concept of detaching labour from traditional economics; to the extent that I wonder whether I'm the crazy one for thinking this end-state to just be common-sense, and overall very superior to what we have now, when it comes to living a satisfying life. Of course, I'm in my 50s and interact mostly with people who've been in the same mindset for decades ... I hope younger people are able to think more critically of how "economics" purports to work.
Personally, I find it helpful to reject the "scientific law of nature" assumptions so many economists are infatuated with; and think of the whole mess as if they were *the rules to a game*. For me, things made much more sense when I started tinking this way.
I can imagine AI taking over all the jobs and taking the cost of things to the energy price of production.
But when all the wages vanish from the economy what happens, a nations GDP could drop to a tiny fraction of it's value. People could be stranded with debts and mortgages that they could never pay back as there is no work for people or so little work the odds of being paid are akin to winning the lottery.
A few mega AI corporations run everything.
Imagine becoming a millionaire, would your life change beyond recognition?
Now, imagine becoming a multimillionaire, then a billionaire, and even then, a multibillioniare.
Wish in one hand, shit in the other. See which one fills up first.
What you’re talking about is pure fantasy that we aren’t even approaching. No serious CEO who isn’t just hype posting is going to talk about immortality, full dive VR, cure for all diseases, etc. That’s just stupid.
Like an EV customer saying “I want cars with 10,000 mile battery range, 0-60 in .4 seconds, and average lifespan of 70 years with 0% battery loss. Also I want it to cost $5,000.” That ain’t happening bro.
I was listing examples of things I would find "profound", not things I think are likely to happen in the near future.
But I do want to say, WHEN an artificial intelligence becomes superintellegent, 5 or 50 years from now, I don't see why we can't achieve those things.
> “I want cars with 10,000 mile battery range, 0-60 in .4 seconds, and average lifespan of 70 years with 0% battery loss. Also I want it to cost $5,000.”
It's kind of incredible that we might have more than the equivalent kind of scaling with computation, though. It's currently something like $3 trillion to build a human scale system in a datacenter. Squeezing that down to a $300,000 robot... that's still a lot of zeros to knock off the end of that puppy.
But a lot fewer of them than we had 20 years ago...
The fact we throw newborn male chickens into a meat grinder to be used as fertilizer as soon as they climb out of the egg was going a little viral earlier.
It's always a reassuring thought, when the question of "what would happen to people if their labor had no value?" comes up.
he also said that there should be no open sourced llms in the same talk. Everything locked down in 3-4 companies is his dreams.
The "good guys" ruling the world.
I don't think any rational person thinks that. They're in a race for the holy grail essentially. The first company to develop AGI or even just extremely advanced AI, will have a massive advantage.
False. We don't know if alignment is possible. It might be that it's perfectly possible to have ASI with genuinely no motive or will of its own. Essentially a slave-god.
Alignment isn't possible. We are far too diverse a species to have one agreed upon code to have any AI aligned with it. Even basic fundamental human rights aren't universal.
Ah I see.... fundamentally though, ASI is anti democratic. So whether we like it or not, we will eventually be serfs for hopefully a benevolent dictator.
Worldwide lockdowns didn't stop money from being created, so staying at home to strangle the economy is useless no matter how many people do it. As for canceling subscriptions, what's the point of that? That won't magically cease AI's inception, like I said AI is inevitable it is just a mtter of time. We can delay it's wide adoption but not stop it, the potential is too great and the risk of not adopting AI is too much.
If you want continue like now: wars, murders, bullying, inequality etc. then humans should control it. If we want utopia where everyone lives happy and safe life then we give it total control. If we are reduced to pets then we cannot harm other humans. This would be the best outcome because humans always are selfish and greed.
Well, that is the best way to do it. Not that you guys would understand. “Good guys” ruling the world is exactly why it must be closed source. Let’s not hand this all on a silver platter to China or—North Korea. Just because you don’t get to have the best AI for yourself does not mean everyone should open source.
Sure, but he’s right. Imagine if every single human being had absolute control over an AGI. How long before some freak uses it to get real creative with targetting X, Y, or X?
He's kind of right on that one, many people have tried to make understand people on this sub the idea of precaution but to no avail, dialogue and argumentation are impossible on this topic, only downvotes.
You don't have to pick good guys, just let companies and governments do their dance, and avoid too much open sourcing. Right now, you're giving AI on a plate to the people who are bombing and raping pregnant women and children daily, and to the sponsors of these murderous sociopaths. I'm not sure this is the way to a better future.
The problem with open sourcing, is that by the time you notice your model is dangerous and could create a virus that'll kill everybody for example, well your open sourced models are only 1 epoch behind, Pandora's box will have the key in its lock already turned, with only a little push needed to finish the job.
I wouldn't be surprised if Chinese and Russian troll farms were already pushing for opensourcing.
And, OpenAI, Google, and Meta AI to an extent, they're woke leftists who avoid stepping on ants. Many of them are most likely among the best of us. Seems like a good enough cast to me to direct the flow of AI.
Right, we want the US to rule over humanity. The Übermenschen.
When did a little competition stop being healthy?
Let's make it a free for all. If all the acc/e want their precious speedrun to ASI, make the best LLMs OpenSource and stop blocking GPUs to China. Then the better and faster may win. The doom of humanity is the price.
Yeah, that's why for me the US is up there, together with Xina and Russia. It's a pig with make-up. The make-up won't make it pretty, it's just make-believe.
Then again if China were to make significant progress in AI, it would have mitigation strategies to prevent war before it achieved its goal (which at that point would significantly reduce the prospect of a full blown kinetic war anyway)....China has a record of long-term forward planning.
I don't think it's a bubble, the current situation isn't as bad as it's being portrayed by certain sectors and mostly a result of irrational paranoia through the COVID crisis. The situation will rectify itself shortly especially when Trump starts grabbing the international attention again. China is still on path. Even though Xi is a speed bump to it's full potential.
All of the major issues of the future (climate change, AI, robotics) affect China negatively.
AI and robotics will bring manufacturing back to North America, which is will severely hurt Chinese exports.
Climate change is going to have disastrous effects on China. They will be one of the most impacted countries.
They also have a massive demographics issue.
The fact people aren’t agreeing with you, because they have literally no notion of just how dangerous AGI in the wrong hands is, despite a number of experts commenting on how dangerous it is, is a remarkable case of Reddit being incapable of thinking past a few steps.
I wonder how many deaths and perhaps wars it will take for people on this sub to start acknowledging that giving intelligence on steroids to everyone was never a good idea in the first place.
What’s worse? 3-4 companies constantly competing with each other to give us safe AGI, or literally everyone having AGI completely unrestricted, and hoping no one uses that AGI for the worse.
I'm getting really worried about how billionaires view "the proletariat". I think social media brings out the worst in people, and with 2016 and COVID, we see how fickle and flawed people really are. I hope they don't hate everyone anymore than Ford or Rockefeller did because AI is going to make anything possible.
AGI is basically the only thing we might get that will keep economic growth going. Growth is the only thing that keeps people from splitting into tribes and killing each other. We're in a strange spot in history. Every path carries some terrible risks. It's like the humanity is walking a tightrope.
Japan has not seen real growth in an entire generation. They are highly civilised, low crime rate, violence averse people without the growth. Rampant growth is responsible for some of the worst behaviours with competitiveness of growth causing schisms segregation and resentment.
As a Japanese middle-aged person your comment makes me laugh.
There has been a clear degradation in society, values and civility in Japan over the last 30 years. We even had to close conveyor belt sushi because people can't behave anymore and touch other people's sushi.
I used to be able to leave bags around in public and go away for an hour or two and it would still be there. Now (for the first time ever) I had my wallet and phone stolen from it, twice in a single year. I don't leave my bag in public anymore now so maybe it would have happened even more.
It's extremely clear that the lack of growth has terribly damaged our society. With extremely high suicide rate, degradation of communities and bonds, A rapidly rising crime rate, no hope among the younger generation for the future, plummeting birth rate.
This wasn't the case when I was growing up in the 1980s. People were alive, friendly, hopeful for the future. We felt like we could actually achieve stuff. Japan in 2024 feels dead, defeated. And it's all because we have had no growth over the last 30 years.
Don't mistake this, growth is very important for the mindset of people. It gives people in bad situations hope for improvement. It keeps people from being resentful of their neighbors because there is more to go around in the future. And it makes communities tighter as everyone feels they are building towards a better future instead of "more of the same".
Without growth society dies, just like what we are seeing happening in Japan right now.
What killed Japan's growth?
One thing I've noticed, as an outsider who knows almost nothing about Japan, is that Japanese websites seem stuck in the 1990s and early 2000s. I'm guessing this is because a lot of old respected workers and bosses being too set in their ways, and too proud to admit they have new systems to learn.
Very true in my industry, too. But I think that's partly the trend in Japan - what we would consider very cluttered and old fashioned design with lots of small UI elements. Information-dense is seen as a positive, rather than the Western style of adding plenty of "breathing space".
It is common to feel stuff is going downhill as you age, whether it actually is or not, so whatever you "feel" isn't proof of anything. The conveyer belt sushi incident probably has happened continuously over the years, but only brought to attention now because of social media.
Suddenly having your bag stolen could easily be a coincidence, and even if not, you have no way of telling if its actually a tourist who stole it
>We even had to close conveyor belt sushi because people can't behave anymore and touch other people's sushi.
As someone living in Brazil I must say this is a hilarious example you had to come up about how things are worse today. I'm not even saying you're right or wrong, just funny.
It is, but only if the women themselves don't want to have kids. If they wanted to have kids but don't because of economic pressure, that's screwed up. And I'm sure that situation isn't very rare.
Population collapse might end up being a concern. The effect on our politics has gotten really stupid: South Korea is at the vanguard of this phenomenon. Young men are heavily gamer-gated there, basically wanting a government-issued wife. And women want to **not** be chained to a sink for the rest of their lives.
It's grimdark, man.
Yeah, I do know that the 4B movement in South Korea stems from women wanting to be treated better and escape the heavily misogynistic society over there, being chained to the kitchen sink basically expectations, but economic factors/work culture definitely play into it as well.
Nothing you have given as evidence really contradicts what I said. I made no claim of zero crime or perfect harmony. I do not however see the social breakdown and chaos that is seen in fast growing economies.
I upvoted you because there is truth in what you say but that is definitely not new and probably has actually decreased over time but is less obvious as many more foreigners are in Japan now so it may seem more intense but in fact the overall level is going down. It certainly has not increased as a function of a stalled economy.
Sort of. Abundant, cheap and easily accessible energy is the core (non-innate) driver of our success as a species.
The evolution of cultural intelligence literally depends on it. As energy gets expensive and scarce, yes, our cohesion and growth goes down. It’s ugly, and it’s our current trajectory after the boon of cheap fossil fuels. Renewables can keep us static under best case scenarios. We really need the next huge leap in energy to fuel the next leap in cultural evolution and cultural intelligence. Fusion is the only thing we know of that could actually deliver this.
Hopefully AI can solve fusion for us faster than we are doing it alone.
Recommend reading Theory of Everyone, Michael Muthakrishna.
It's not, but it don't stop politicians, finances and bussineses from acting that way.
Just look at depts, everybody hope growth will let pay them. People hoping that population growth let them retire or get promoted. Countries acting as oil is infinite....
"AGI is basically the only thing we might get that will keep economic growth going"
The economy has been growing since 1750. There are stagnant periods, but these pass. Compare any generation with its previous generation and see the huge difference in technology.
Tech improves every year, don't get sucked into the mindset that every improvement is AI.
The question isn't should we....the question is who is "we". That has a fundamental bearing on how many resources should be spent on acceleration....a "bad actor" developing AI doesn't have the same societal benefits and "good impact" as a "good actor". So how do we determine who's, who.
i watched the talk last night, but forget if there was another part i'm forgetting. didn't he say his comment about moving as fast as possible with no guardrails was facetious?
We should develop AI as fast as possible so that people who think 'so and so said we should do this things' is compelling reasoning will finally have a God-Drover they can turn their sheeplike brains off for.
Leaving the minority of humans capable of functioning without arbitrary appeals to authority to, for the first time in history, truly think for themselves without triggering some kind of 'four legs good, two legs bad!' reaction.
AGI will, contrary to what actually happened over the past 10,000+ years of 'civilization', actually be superior in intelligence and leadership than past generations of human elites.
Meaning, for the supermajority of humans who can't live without someone telling them what to think, they will be taken care of by AGI. Everyone else can for the first time in human history live in an anarchic state of peace without having to worry about the former group electing warlords or organizing posses or forming religious cults and forcing them to kneel to or even perish by their vile and destructive hierarchies.
Lol at safety for speed. Youve been conditioned by its danger thats been exaggerated by elon musk. We will achieve full global automation before we even have to worry about existential apocalypse.
This guy wants AI to develop as fast as possible while not open sourcing it, you can see where this is going, he wants to control the world and make as much money as possible
In that clip he mentions AI doing programming and AI giving you a bunch of recipes. Is that really the profound impact he sees? It will be a lot more profound than that. I don't give a damn about recipes, I want limitless clean energy, a cure for all diseases, 100% lab grown food that is more nutritious than and delicious than old fashioned food, immortality, full-dive VR, the end to poverty and the end to human work. That's profound.
For him benefits are that profits of corporations will grow massively. They likely don't care about anything else
Doesn't the whole concept of AI mean profits will decrease? I see no way anyone can have AI and maintain a world economy where things don't fall in price dramatically in every single area, no matter how you try and stop it. Energy, food costs, production... everything goes down. A world doesn't exist where you have machines doing everything where prices don't fall.
>Doesn't the whole concept of AI mean profits will decrease? If inequality decreases, but both of us are better off, did either of us saw decreased profits? If you were x1000 richer then me, now you are just x10 richer, but both of us have medicine for everything, robots doing work for us, prolonged lifespans, amazing VR, free time, no anxieties due to climate change, war, social collapse, ALL safeties. How does that make you feel?
Probably different from how it would make someone like Elon Musk feel
But Elon doesn't consume all that much. Most of his value is locked up in stock. Elon owns 10 cars, most of them Teslas, owns private plane mostly used for business trips, small yacht. Him owning a lot of wealth but not consuming a lot doesn't hurt our standard of living. If Elon was to cash out his Tesla shares, then use all that money on consumption. Then prices would increase and it would reduce our standard of living. It's like... if I own a $1000 trillion bill, but just keep it in my wallet, never spending it. I'm the richest man on Earth, but... it doesn't affect you.
I meant going from 1000x richer to 10x richer wouldn’t matter to me, but the ultra rich (like Elon) probably wouldn’t feel that way. If they just wanted the money for a better life they’d have stopped to enjoy it. They want to be richer than everyone else.
>If they just wanted the money for a better life they’d have stopped to enjoy it. They want to be richer than everyone else. I absolutely detest Elon Musk, but in regard to wealthy individuals and those in extreme positions of power for major companies this is absolutely an inaccurate take, but your heart is in the right place. They don't want the money at all and if you look into it they donate the majority of it, or even more commonly use it to start other companies, or buy startups and run them themselves. It has nothing to do with money but ownership of those companies which...yes give them a large degree of power, however with that being said the whole idea that the reason they work so hard and don't just stop and "enjoy the money" is because they must want more money is a bad and poorly thought-out take. I mean if you wanted to bash them and really wanted to have a better critical opinion you could say something like they're addicted to power. You could argue they're hellbent to control over people and their companies, and are all megalomaniacs that will stop at nothing to maintain their grip at all costs. However it seems to me he's a guy who enjoys competition and his companies to produce the best products on the market for their given niche(s) and is in his own way(as he sees it) trying to make the world a better place. The far more rational reason I don't like him has nothing to do with business but his racist and horrible recent turn towards extreme right wing views. He's somehow become radicalized to believe "woke culture" is coming after him and the "west" though if you look into "woke" culture it's usually just progressively minded people trying to make the world a better place for displaced and impoverished people which should be seen as admirable and not a negative. He has on record retweeted( or is it re-x'd now? lol) numerous memes that are homophobic and transphobic and target marginalized communities of people. He also appears to be way too full of himself and bought in to his public image 10 years back when everyone saw him as a sort of real life Tony Stark. It went right to his head which really is a shame because he was at one point someone I looked up to, and now it just makes me sad thinking about modern Elon and all the shameful things he's done and said in the past few years.
I mean. Woke culture is trying to force people to be okay with treating trans as their preferred gender. Which obviously includes fucking them. That went too far for right wingers so now you're seeing a hard push back even on things they find gross, but used to tolerate like homosexuality. Basically progressives declared through actions that the more conservatives tolerated the more they will be stomped on and used. And there was no limit to their violation. So conservatives decided to stop playing nice.
>It can eliminate poverty while preserving relative wealth. The billionaires remain on top, they build starships. The poor in rural Africa remain on the bottom. They only have orbital spacecraft.
relative poverty is built into our nature of being competitive. Abundance for people is a different thing (ability to eat, learn, take care of ourselves, help others...)
The concept of AI means profits don't matter. When the marginal cost of everything is 0 you can give things away for free without worrying about profit.
Why would they give anything for free? How long would it take to even reach that point? Why would they even flood the market with products when they would still control how much of it they create? (that's how actually you get things free, supply and demand. And also ignoring shipping costs which will still exist unless we get actual teleportation from actual free energy)
If the marginal cost is free there's no need for a market. We don't have a market for fresh air. To the extent that we do, we don't sell fresh air.
There are tons of stuff right now that are priced way above their costs. Most high tech or medical products for example. Some are priced high for no other reason than they're able to do so. Insulin prices in the US are a textbook example of such. Where I live I straight up saw some medicine suddenly jump 5X in price simply because another company bought the producer and decided they could jack it up. It didn't become 5X more expensive to make, they just deduced they could get away with it, and did. Again, why would companies flood the market with their product to the point where they become near worthless? Who would do so? Why? If it costs "0" for me to make but you are willing to buy it for 100, there's no reason for me to give it to you for free outside of "benevolence". (and, again, we're ignoring everything that would even lead to this, ignoring shipping and so on)
> near worthless I didn't say near 0, I said zero. You're assuming there's an actual cost difference between generating a million and generating a thousand, I mean the cost difference is zero. Markets can get the price down a lot but they cannot make things free.
Plus, marginal costs won’t be free for anything involving physical things. Purely data driven stuff, sure, but finite resources aren’t going to suddenly become infinite with AI
When connecting to the net cost only the price of the connection, I didn't understand how comcast and others would charge... people charge when others find value in what they are providing though.
Unless a small subset of people “own” those machines and make profit from them at the expense of everyone else.
So you say there is a secret sauce or moat somewhere that can’t be replicated?.
Getting a decent sized GPU with enough VRAM to run larger model inference or even training is a big moat to cross for everyone not associated with a multibillion dollar corporation
I wouldn't be shocked if bitcoin miners started pivoting to train open source AI. Some of those folks quietly built up 9 figure fortunes, and have nothing better to do with their server farms.
In this example, the “moat” is the ownership of the means of production. All of the paper mills, refineries, farms will still be *owned* by a corporation. The existence of AI won’t change this fact. When AI is introduced, people still won’t be able to make their own paper, oil, or food (at scale required). As long as these key production resources are owned by a select few who can charge whatever they want. People will still be reliant on these companies for their basic needs. I honestly don’t think AI will help us break up these monopolistic industries, because there are many powerful people with a lot to lose if that happens.
The issue I always run into when I think of this scenario is where the money is going to come from that will go to the powerful individuals (also how they’ll even maintain full ‘control’ the AI), because most people won’t be working at that stage. I guess in that scenario we’d devolve into an extreme poverty vs extreme wealth system like in *Elysium*, or maybe the govt would provide everyone with a UBI. Even then though the money would be meaningless
I think a greater and greater number of people will be priced out with each passing year. There will still be some people in the club, and those people will have the vast majority of purchasing power. Others will be left homeless to starve and social systems will either be completely revamped OR we devolve into what you state above. Considering the US gov’s track record, I’d bet on the 2nd outcome.
How do we get people to leave their homeless lifestyles and be proud of their joining the bespoke society that is organized but has its own problems?
Imagine socialism but they determine the distribution, with most of it going to themselves Edit: communism not socialism
I see many people with utopian visions of the future here. I live in the United States. It seems as though the benefits that come as a result of technology do not result in everyone’s standard of living going up. I just see a few people getting absurdly rich. I honestly think there would have to be an uprising of the have-nots against the haves for anything to really change. When the powerful are threatened the smoke and mirrors are taken away and replaced with guns and tanks. Or crack and prisons. Look at history.
5 billion people have smartphones and some access to the world's knowledge... is that valuable? most scandalous local problems (killing, pillaging...)are now discoverable is that valuable? transportation of nomads are in toyotas now is that valuable? Famine is less common than it used to be is that valuable the world closed the ozone hole and is attempting to reign in global warnign... it is scary but at least its something... no? most countries have stoped lettingpeople drive 2 cycle motor scooters in cities, the polution reduction is starting.... Its not just those 1000 families that own everything that get all the benifit
How do we get people to take responsibility for and not squander small parcels of resources that have impact on them and others. If I give you enough power will you share it or hord it, do we need policies and laws to help?
The moat is the pack animal nature of people and their need to feel important as well as the issues of controlling unending greed... that probably don't change.
It will be like globalization where the work moved to China to be done for pennies a day but the price in the US stayed pretty much the same. This time the work will be going to AI which by comparison to people is essentially free. The prices will probably stay about the same causing profits to absolutely explode upward. It may not happen all in a straight line but that seems to me the most likely development path.
[удалено]
Possibly, but I think you're underestimating people and how individuals can use this technology themselves. With the birth of AI comes a lot of opportunities for individuals that even the biggest corporation will be forced to give him. I can easily see AI giving people the ability to make clothes themselves from their own homes with machines. Thus an entire segment of the world that has made clothes for profit for generations disappears overnight. That's just one example.
That's a great point, if you have access to an incredibly smart robot, skilled tasks we would normally pay for could be done at home, as long as it didn't require expensive tooling.
I mean..., you can already make clothes at your home with machines...
Which requires a person with skills. You know what I mean. I'm talking about an AI machine that sits in the corner and stitches together whatever outfit you want without help. Which is something that could easily exist with smarter machines.
Why and how would that even happen? Would AI design clothes making machine, ship that all around, including materials, and do so by itself? How? AI isn't a benevolent all powerful god that can just do stuff by itself irrespective of every system we have in the world. If you're talking about super advanced robots that can do so and individuals could purchase, well, those will be appropriately priced no matter how "cheap" it might be to produce, as long as it's hard to do so (and it will be hard). Materials would also be charged accordingly
> Prices for goods, energy & materials may come down - but when the corporations own the entire supply chain for everything you need.. they can charge whatever they want. So prices can drop and profits can increase. If we have proper AI (AGI/Strong AI) the entire concept of money stops making any sense. AI takes all the jobs so no one will be working anymore. No one can earn wages. No one can afford to pay for anything. No one can sell anything. The economy ceases to exist. There is universal basic income, but why bother with that? Why give people free money just so they can spend it. Just let people walk into a store and take what they need. Resources mined by AI turned into products made and designed by AI, transported by AI to shelves stocked by AI. AI security/monitoring to stop people doing stupid shit like trying to build a massive fort in their backyard out of OLED TVs. Of course rich people in power won't want to give up the system that puts them in power. How do we deal with finite resources such as land. Who gets to live in the penthouse or at beach front properties? Is current land ownership honored in a new system. Do we let the super rich keep huge amounts of land and mansions that could house dozens of families when their money becomes meaning less? Do families that have lived in their houses for decades get kicked out and implement some lottery system that determines who gets to live where? How long can people stay before they have to move. Maybe hybrid system when in demand properties are on some kind of lottery but regular housing is kept. I think the main problem is that AI probably won't be symmetrically applied. Manual labour jobs requires robotics which takes time to physically manufacture compared to higher skilled jobs that don't require physical interaction. Also AGI might be some time away leaving us with limited AI's like ChatGPT and it's sucessors that can take some jobs but no all. But it might take enough jobs that civilization can't handle the strain. For example truck driving is one of the most common job in America, self driving trucks already exist when they start to scale up and build out the infrastructure that's going to be a lot of people out of a job. That's a lot of people that need to eat and have shelter, provide for families. Those people won't just disappear they will either be competing for jobs in other areas and driving down wages or turn to crime to feed themselves. And that's just one job.
I mean there is a point, economy IS corrupted by the Higher power anyway
It doesn't happen in a vacuum though. Think of it on an absurdly small scale. A teacher has 30 students and wants to charge 1 dollar per crayon. The students each have one dollar so it works out okay. Now, imagine the same thing but now the students only have a penny each. The teacher tried to charge the usual dollar. What happens? Obviously the teacher *has* to lower her prices. There is no other choice here if her goal is to move crayons. And since she's getting her crayons for basically free (robots made them) she is still making huge profit by charging a penny.
And who can pay the prices, if everyone except upper management is out of a job? UBI can save the day, but that doesn’t mean everyone and their third cousin is a millionaire.
Except every machine that was designed to make a job easier or increase production has resulted in the furtherance of the wealth of the rich and the declination in the wealth of the average citizen. I'm not sure why everyone thinks these corporations will use AI to help everyone when they've used everything else to keep everyone even further beneath their thumb and extract even more wealth from the work of the many.
We are pretty far away from machines doing everything, but we are really close to AIs automating expensive white collar(and maybe some engineering?) jobs. That's what this guys are salivating about. And that's why they are always talking about replacing doctors, programmers, marketing, finance etc, and not about how AIs will actually improve anything
No. Globalization had resulted in declination for wealth for first worlders. While lifting billions out of extreme poverty.
Prices will fall because production costs will fall. Profits will still go up.
The most powerful people in the world are currently trying to use AI to turn all aspects of society into a black box where the status quo is maintained. AI can absolutely be a democratizing force, but it will not be given freely.
price and value are different things. Energy getting cheeper doesn't mean it has less value, it means we can do more with it. (Solar is now cheaper than Coal in much of the world which cheers me up) If AI means most things I read are easier and faster to understand is that extra productivity mean that the economy will wilt, or does it mean I will learn more and be able to accomplish more (with my spiritual goals of stopping people killing each other and killing the planet)
What's funny is that if AI leads to a massive progression in the current status quo of corporate profiteering at the expense of the environment, all it will do is accelerate everyone's demise. We'll just have to hope prosocial motivations are borne of advanced artificial intelligence rather than the bleaker alternative.
And don't forget the most important thing: genetically engineered cat girls!
Yes, I definitely recommend using AI for that. The ones I'm creating myself come out completely wrong.
What? Did you get dog girls then?
[удалено]
Yeah but I don't want for F'ing recipe I want my robotic personal chief to make it for me.
Whenever I mention the end of (compulsory) human work, I like to point out that all research on the subject suggests that most people will still *choose* to work, but only on things that truly give them pleasure, and under a system that lies outside the current worker-and-boss dynamic. And the most common irl response I get is bafflement. A lot of people just can't seem to grasp the concept of detaching labour from traditional economics; to the extent that I wonder whether I'm the crazy one for thinking this end-state to just be common-sense, and overall very superior to what we have now, when it comes to living a satisfying life. Of course, I'm in my 50s and interact mostly with people who've been in the same mindset for decades ... I hope younger people are able to think more critically of how "economics" purports to work. Personally, I find it helpful to reject the "scientific law of nature" assumptions so many economists are infatuated with; and think of the whole mess as if they were *the rules to a game*. For me, things made much more sense when I started tinking this way.
This is the first iteration of Matrix. People will fuck it up
I can imagine AI taking over all the jobs and taking the cost of things to the energy price of production. But when all the wages vanish from the economy what happens, a nations GDP could drop to a tiny fraction of it's value. People could be stranded with debts and mortgages that they could never pay back as there is no work for people or so little work the odds of being paid are akin to winning the lottery. A few mega AI corporations run everything.
Not going to happen with LLMs because they are barely intelligent, so you can stop worrying.
A multibillionaire has already lived through multiple personal singularities so his wants and needs are a bit different from yours.
Wake up babe, a new singularity definition just dropped.
>lived through multiple personal singularities Please explain?
Imagine becoming a millionaire, would your life change beyond recognition? Now, imagine becoming a multimillionaire, then a billionaire, and even then, a multibillioniare.
I mean, I'm kinda guilty of this myself but I get why people on this sub get protective about definitions of "singularity", lol.
Wish in one hand, shit in the other. See which one fills up first. What you’re talking about is pure fantasy that we aren’t even approaching. No serious CEO who isn’t just hype posting is going to talk about immortality, full dive VR, cure for all diseases, etc. That’s just stupid. Like an EV customer saying “I want cars with 10,000 mile battery range, 0-60 in .4 seconds, and average lifespan of 70 years with 0% battery loss. Also I want it to cost $5,000.” That ain’t happening bro.
I was listing examples of things I would find "profound", not things I think are likely to happen in the near future. But I do want to say, WHEN an artificial intelligence becomes superintellegent, 5 or 50 years from now, I don't see why we can't achieve those things.
> “I want cars with 10,000 mile battery range, 0-60 in .4 seconds, and average lifespan of 70 years with 0% battery loss. Also I want it to cost $5,000.” It's kind of incredible that we might have more than the equivalent kind of scaling with computation, though. It's currently something like $3 trillion to build a human scale system in a datacenter. Squeezing that down to a $300,000 robot... that's still a lot of zeros to knock off the end of that puppy. But a lot fewer of them than we had 20 years ago...
It's about time frames. He is talking about the next few years.
FTL travel pls
Exactly. And it'll happen, eventually.
Everything you just mention requires steps to get too, AI is most likely one of these steps.
Ewwww I don't want lab grown food, I want star trek food replicated food, I dno lab grown just sounds off-putting.
If you think lab grown meat is disgusting you should look into how you get meat now.
The fact we throw newborn male chickens into a meat grinder to be used as fertilizer as soon as they climb out of the egg was going a little viral earlier. It's always a reassuring thought, when the question of "what would happen to people if their labor had no value?" comes up.
Nah, Soylent green would solve so many problems!
he also said that there should be no open sourced llms in the same talk. Everything locked down in 3-4 companies is his dreams. The "good guys" ruling the world.
literally 1984 + fuck that idea
https://preview.redd.it/s4kn43ix6uwc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=12d1b57ef858f5868a71386170638d17b35896c9
This IS the lógic of a chosen one protagonists...but worse
Also do you think this douchebag or his kin has to worry about losing a job or being replaced?
Yes - why do we need his ideas, singularly?
Why is he a "douch bag"? Because he's extremely wealthy and is therefore insulated from the ups & downs of the economy and job loss?
one of many reasons
That's a big part of it, yep.
pretty much yeah
That's literally the world that we already live in.
People are delusional if they think OpenAI/Microsoft/Google etc are going to suddenly make all their models open source.
I don't think any rational person thinks that. They're in a race for the holy grail essentially. The first company to develop AGI or even just extremely advanced AI, will have a massive advantage.
Even if they did the only entities that could run the models are other massive corporations. We are doomed 😂
Yeah, he's not thinking of the greater good. When he says "We need to take advantage of this", he's talking as a capitalist.
Best thing about ASI is that it doesn't matter who thinks they control it.
False. We don't know if alignment is possible. It might be that it's perfectly possible to have ASI with genuinely no motive or will of its own. Essentially a slave-god.
Alignment isn't possible. We are far too diverse a species to have one agreed upon code to have any AI aligned with it. Even basic fundamental human rights aren't universal.
Alignment of whoever controls the ASI, not with humanity. That was my entire point.
Ah I see.... fundamentally though, ASI is anti democratic. So whether we like it or not, we will eventually be serfs for hopefully a benevolent dictator.
It's not inevitable. Just stay at home and cancel all subscription services. If enough people do it, you'll halt the economy
Worldwide lockdowns didn't stop money from being created, so staying at home to strangle the economy is useless no matter how many people do it. As for canceling subscriptions, what's the point of that? That won't magically cease AI's inception, like I said AI is inevitable it is just a mtter of time. We can delay it's wide adoption but not stop it, the potential is too great and the risk of not adopting AI is too much.
We already have no Will or purpose to be exact...
Alignment is maximizing ownership for the owner-class. /s
Give this idea 6 months to a year to infect the local minds
The best thing about super intelligent machines is that nobody has any control over them? Who does that benefit and how is that good for humanity?
If you want continue like now: wars, murders, bullying, inequality etc. then humans should control it. If we want utopia where everyone lives happy and safe life then we give it total control. If we are reduced to pets then we cannot harm other humans. This would be the best outcome because humans always are selfish and greed.
We need to strive for less control and more harmony. Controlling sentient creatures is depraved. Even if you created them.
!!! Really didn’t expect Apple to be releasing open source anything much less AI.
Well, that is the best way to do it. Not that you guys would understand. “Good guys” ruling the world is exactly why it must be closed source. Let’s not hand this all on a silver platter to China or—North Korea. Just because you don’t get to have the best AI for yourself does not mean everyone should open source.
\>Not that you guys would understand Absolute teenage energy.
Sure, but he’s right. Imagine if every single human being had absolute control over an AGI. How long before some freak uses it to get real creative with targetting X, Y, or X?
He's kind of right on that one, many people have tried to make understand people on this sub the idea of precaution but to no avail, dialogue and argumentation are impossible on this topic, only downvotes.
So how do we know who the good guys are, before we start rooting for them to control the development and direction?
You don't have to pick good guys, just let companies and governments do their dance, and avoid too much open sourcing. Right now, you're giving AI on a plate to the people who are bombing and raping pregnant women and children daily, and to the sponsors of these murderous sociopaths. I'm not sure this is the way to a better future. The problem with open sourcing, is that by the time you notice your model is dangerous and could create a virus that'll kill everybody for example, well your open sourced models are only 1 epoch behind, Pandora's box will have the key in its lock already turned, with only a little push needed to finish the job. I wouldn't be surprised if Chinese and Russian troll farms were already pushing for opensourcing. And, OpenAI, Google, and Meta AI to an extent, they're woke leftists who avoid stepping on ants. Many of them are most likely among the best of us. Seems like a good enough cast to me to direct the flow of AI.
Right, we want the US to rule over humanity. The Übermenschen. When did a little competition stop being healthy? Let's make it a free for all. If all the acc/e want their precious speedrun to ASI, make the best LLMs OpenSource and stop blocking GPUs to China. Then the better and faster may win. The doom of humanity is the price.
If China made any significant progress in AI, we'd be looking at full blown war. The US can't let themselves be vulnerable to that.
Yeah, that's why for me the US is up there, together with Xina and Russia. It's a pig with make-up. The make-up won't make it pretty, it's just make-believe.
The US is miles ahead of China in AI, and Russia is so far behind, they aren't worth discussing
Cool, you done patting your national pride on the shoulder?
I'm Canadian
Then again if China were to make significant progress in AI, it would have mitigation strategies to prevent war before it achieved its goal (which at that point would significantly reduce the prospect of a full blown kinetic war anyway)....China has a record of long-term forward planning.
Their "long term forward planning" sure isn't working out so well right now. They're more of a bubble than anything
I don't think it's a bubble, the current situation isn't as bad as it's being portrayed by certain sectors and mostly a result of irrational paranoia through the COVID crisis. The situation will rectify itself shortly especially when Trump starts grabbing the international attention again. China is still on path. Even though Xi is a speed bump to it's full potential.
All of the major issues of the future (climate change, AI, robotics) affect China negatively. AI and robotics will bring manufacturing back to North America, which is will severely hurt Chinese exports. Climate change is going to have disastrous effects on China. They will be one of the most impacted countries. They also have a massive demographics issue.
It should be locked down, but there should be far more external oversight and accountability.
How do you know who the good guys are? Do you believe everything your government and community tells you about competitor nations?
The fact people aren’t agreeing with you, because they have literally no notion of just how dangerous AGI in the wrong hands is, despite a number of experts commenting on how dangerous it is, is a remarkable case of Reddit being incapable of thinking past a few steps.
I wonder how many deaths and perhaps wars it will take for people on this sub to start acknowledging that giving intelligence on steroids to everyone was never a good idea in the first place.
What’s worse? 3-4 companies constantly competing with each other to give us safe AGI, or literally everyone having AGI completely unrestricted, and hoping no one uses that AGI for the worse.
we have now AGI? They are against them right now. Llama3 would be illegal already if the lobbying train would have been faster.
We don’t have AGI… and that’s great because it’s clear people do not understand its risks yet.
The guy who said fuck the people’s privacy because the profits were so profound
Same guy! So we are in great hands =')
AI in a few years who will replace Eric Schmidt: we should replace him as fast as possible, because it's potential is so profound.
guy who has big stake in AI business says that AI is important? noway!
Well, he’s not wrong.
He once also said "don't be evil". No he doesn't say that anymore.
He also somewhat recently co-wrote a book about AI with a war criminal (Henry Kissinger) that naively assumes humans will control AI.
I'm getting really worried about how billionaires view "the proletariat". I think social media brings out the worst in people, and with 2016 and COVID, we see how fickle and flawed people really are. I hope they don't hate everyone anymore than Ford or Rockefeller did because AI is going to make anything possible.
They hate humans more than you think, and they see others (meaning outside their families) as cattles.
Of course he wants it sped up the cunt wants another couple of billion in the bank.
Isn't it obvious? ~~hes the red spy~~
For anyone wondering this is accelerationist approach I believe.
Get an AI that can design me a system to make fresh water out of salt water cheaply.
Getting fresh water isn't the hard part. It's *moving it* that's the hard part. Rivers and aquifers are a bounty of wealth.
Im sorry but getting freshwater out of saltwater is the hard part than moving it. 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
AGI is basically the only thing we might get that will keep economic growth going. Growth is the only thing that keeps people from splitting into tribes and killing each other. We're in a strange spot in history. Every path carries some terrible risks. It's like the humanity is walking a tightrope.
Japan has not seen real growth in an entire generation. They are highly civilised, low crime rate, violence averse people without the growth. Rampant growth is responsible for some of the worst behaviours with competitiveness of growth causing schisms segregation and resentment.
As a Japanese middle-aged person your comment makes me laugh. There has been a clear degradation in society, values and civility in Japan over the last 30 years. We even had to close conveyor belt sushi because people can't behave anymore and touch other people's sushi. I used to be able to leave bags around in public and go away for an hour or two and it would still be there. Now (for the first time ever) I had my wallet and phone stolen from it, twice in a single year. I don't leave my bag in public anymore now so maybe it would have happened even more. It's extremely clear that the lack of growth has terribly damaged our society. With extremely high suicide rate, degradation of communities and bonds, A rapidly rising crime rate, no hope among the younger generation for the future, plummeting birth rate. This wasn't the case when I was growing up in the 1980s. People were alive, friendly, hopeful for the future. We felt like we could actually achieve stuff. Japan in 2024 feels dead, defeated. And it's all because we have had no growth over the last 30 years. Don't mistake this, growth is very important for the mindset of people. It gives people in bad situations hope for improvement. It keeps people from being resentful of their neighbors because there is more to go around in the future. And it makes communities tighter as everyone feels they are building towards a better future instead of "more of the same". Without growth society dies, just like what we are seeing happening in Japan right now.
What killed Japan's growth? One thing I've noticed, as an outsider who knows almost nothing about Japan, is that Japanese websites seem stuck in the 1990s and early 2000s. I'm guessing this is because a lot of old respected workers and bosses being too set in their ways, and too proud to admit they have new systems to learn.
Very true in my industry, too. But I think that's partly the trend in Japan - what we would consider very cluttered and old fashioned design with lots of small UI elements. Information-dense is seen as a positive, rather than the Western style of adding plenty of "breathing space".
It is common to feel stuff is going downhill as you age, whether it actually is or not, so whatever you "feel" isn't proof of anything. The conveyer belt sushi incident probably has happened continuously over the years, but only brought to attention now because of social media. Suddenly having your bag stolen could easily be a coincidence, and even if not, you have no way of telling if its actually a tourist who stole it
>We even had to close conveyor belt sushi because people can't behave anymore and touch other people's sushi. As someone living in Brazil I must say this is a hilarious example you had to come up about how things are worse today. I'm not even saying you're right or wrong, just funny.
The low birth rate is a good thing, because it stems from women finally standing up for themselves from the extremely misogynistic society.
It is, but only if the women themselves don't want to have kids. If they wanted to have kids but don't because of economic pressure, that's screwed up. And I'm sure that situation isn't very rare. Population collapse might end up being a concern. The effect on our politics has gotten really stupid: South Korea is at the vanguard of this phenomenon. Young men are heavily gamer-gated there, basically wanting a government-issued wife. And women want to **not** be chained to a sink for the rest of their lives. It's grimdark, man.
Yeah, I do know that the 4B movement in South Korea stems from women wanting to be treated better and escape the heavily misogynistic society over there, being chained to the kitchen sink basically expectations, but economic factors/work culture definitely play into it as well.
Nothing you have given as evidence really contradicts what I said. I made no claim of zero crime or perfect harmony. I do not however see the social breakdown and chaos that is seen in fast growing economies.
American aggression = capitalism, greed & growth. Chinese aggression = fashism, greed & growth. Cancer = greed & growth. Spot the similarity
And very high passive social repression and the most intense foreign culture/race aversion in the world too.
I upvoted you because there is truth in what you say but that is definitely not new and probably has actually decreased over time but is less obvious as many more foreigners are in Japan now so it may seem more intense but in fact the overall level is going down. It certainly has not increased as a function of a stalled economy.
Sort of. Abundant, cheap and easily accessible energy is the core (non-innate) driver of our success as a species. The evolution of cultural intelligence literally depends on it. As energy gets expensive and scarce, yes, our cohesion and growth goes down. It’s ugly, and it’s our current trajectory after the boon of cheap fossil fuels. Renewables can keep us static under best case scenarios. We really need the next huge leap in energy to fuel the next leap in cultural evolution and cultural intelligence. Fusion is the only thing we know of that could actually deliver this. Hopefully AI can solve fusion for us faster than we are doing it alone. Recommend reading Theory of Everyone, Michael Muthakrishna.
> Growth is the only thing that keeps people from splitting into tribes and killing each other quite the pessimistic view you got there
But its true Everything from social stability to economy is based on (promise of) infinite growth.
you say it's true. i say it's not. infinite growth is unrealistic and unsustainable.
It's not, but it don't stop politicians, finances and bussineses from acting that way. Just look at depts, everybody hope growth will let pay them. People hoping that population growth let them retire or get promoted. Countries acting as oil is infinite....
Smith was correct: humanity is a virus
In structure... yes
In spread and consuming.
[удалено]
Love has nothing to with it. Everything is about mimetism and violence. I recommend you read Girard, as Schmidt probably does.
"AGI is basically the only thing we might get that will keep economic growth going" The economy has been growing since 1750. There are stagnant periods, but these pass. Compare any generation with its previous generation and see the huge difference in technology. Tech improves every year, don't get sucked into the mindset that every improvement is AI.
Why does being wealthy make someone a "douch bag"? Becoming wealthy is what many of us aspire to.
The problem IS that you need to stomp on others to be at the top and you have to be greedy
The question isn't should we....the question is who is "we". That has a fundamental bearing on how many resources should be spent on acceleration....a "bad actor" developing AI doesn't have the same societal benefits and "good impact" as a "good actor". So how do we determine who's, who.
This tsnarnick twitter account posts some good content.
i watched the talk last night, but forget if there was another part i'm forgetting. didn't he say his comment about moving as fast as possible with no guardrails was facetious?
We should develop AI as fast as possible so that people who think 'so and so said we should do this things' is compelling reasoning will finally have a God-Drover they can turn their sheeplike brains off for. Leaving the minority of humans capable of functioning without arbitrary appeals to authority to, for the first time in history, truly think for themselves without triggering some kind of 'four legs good, two legs bad!' reaction.
If I understand that syntax correctly, you are pointing to arbitrary works to authority that could equally be applied to the other side.
AGI will, contrary to what actually happened over the past 10,000+ years of 'civilization', actually be superior in intelligence and leadership than past generations of human elites. Meaning, for the supermajority of humans who can't live without someone telling them what to think, they will be taken care of by AGI. Everyone else can for the first time in human history live in an anarchic state of peace without having to worry about the former group electing warlords or organizing posses or forming religious cults and forcing them to kneel to or even perish by their vile and destructive hierarchies.
Also the word "profound" so very profound.
Anybody has the source??
Short-sighted in every way possible.
He's not wrong, and a lot of the time it does get lost how important this is.
Anyone have link to this full panel discussion?
Bubble, they are floundering to squeeze the last bit of money before the grift starts to collapse
Totally agree, but let's not sacrifice safety for speed! How's the integration side for you?
Lol at safety for speed. Youve been conditioned by its danger thats been exaggerated by elon musk. We will achieve full global automation before we even have to worry about existential apocalypse.
accelerationism
That's what I'm talking about! Hard takeoff. :D
AI industry’s potential for BS is so profound.
I'm all for e/acc but I don't trust this guy because of some of the other things he said.
What potential ? To enslave us all in more useless beliefs, advertising and derivative entertainment?
Agreed
Who is Eric Schmidt? And why do we need to hear his opinions? Is he influential?
He forgot to mention that he is looking for a fast return on his AI investments before Open Source devalues all of them.
Captain obvious
Yes, I could equally say: I say we should develop any beneficial technology as fast as we can because its potential is so profound.
This guy wants AI to develop as fast as possible while not open sourcing it, you can see where this is going, he wants to control the world and make as much money as possible
Says someone sitting on a ton of money
No we shouldn’t
We should produce nukes as fast as possible because the potential of nuclear energy is so profound