[HN Gopher] Moore's Law for Everything ___________________________________________________________________ Moore's Law for Everything Author : icey Score : 174 points Date : 2021-03-16 18:38 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (moores.samaltman.com) (TXT) w3m dump (moores.samaltman.com) | [deleted] | dzink wrote: | Sam, you have a lot of great ideas and a lot of assumptions in | this essay. Just like the parameters in deep learning models, we | can't know what will work in different scenarios until we can | model it reliably. Time to build a worldwide game, version of the | Sims if you will, to test different assumptions and global | activity based on them. Happy to help on this too. | | Some big assumptions: - Childcare can or cannot be handled by | robots (very likely not if you need to raise healthy humans). | | - Healthcare can or cannot be handled by robots. | | - Humans will enjoy lack of employment without mental damage and | how to retrain or provide for those needs. | | In the game each player should be assigned a random individual | with different roles in society - so they can see all angles | (from different speeds of income accruing, to health, to time | demands of their job, to responsibilities that need handled, | etc). You will see all kinds of bugs that way - from individual | liquidity crunches, to mental breakdowns, to industries that need | more innovation/AI. | | You can run any assumption in different epochs and get the answer | by humans who play along worldwide. | | That way when the rules are about to change due to an innovation, | we can run a fun game simulation instead of running the risk of | anarchy which kills a lot of people. | | It is critically important to think about how we structure the | future based on the technology we unlock. My pull request on this | essay would be to propose we build a test suite for that first. | Maybe we can use AI to simulate outcomes too after a good number | of human runs. | AndrewBissell wrote: | As with so much Silicon Valley stuff, I think the latest | evangelizing for AI is probably just laundering military and | counterinsurgency tech as some kind of utopian consumer godsend. | Obviously AGI will remain a pipe dream, but what we _will_ get is | autonomous robotic soldiers with no conscience (that can be | counted on to put down unrest without questioning their orders), | or listening software that can monitor everyone 's communications | to identify targets in real time. | wmf wrote: | My main thought after seeing Elysium was "if the robots are so | advanced, why not use them to help people?" Healthcare is just | a big as the military, so why would the robot makers turn down | that opportunity? | AndrewBissell wrote: | Who owns the robots, and what are their motivations? | m___ wrote: | There was never in history a quest for the benefit of what is | now a surplus population that has as only asset to pollute, | contaminate, be parasitical and cannibalistic. Whatever stands | for AI(no real definition in the lead text, just suggestive | blabla), will be at the benefit of the immediate and power of | the established few. Our "elites" are, were cockroaches. | Between them and the latter surplus population there is a | margin of whoring societals with some wackoo agenda not | surpassing their primary drifts. The lower on the food chain, | the cruder the desires for basic comfort. | [deleted] | nitwit005 wrote: | > In the next five years, computer programs that can think will | read legal documents and give medical advice. | | Bad medical or legal advice is completely possible. It exists | now. | | Giving good medical or legal advice requires, at a minimum, being | able to carry out a full conversation to investigate the problem, | including understanding things not directly related to the field. | There's no sign of getting that any time soon. | | Efficiency improvements in an area like the law may also result | in people imposing new burdens, eroding the efficiency gains. | Laws that once would have seemed too burdensome will no longer be | seen as such. | adambaybutt wrote: | Depends how medical advice is defined, but AI has been shown to | be better than humans in several contexts already, e.g. | radiology. | Jommi wrote: | Source? | jppope wrote: | hmm... I've been to WebMD and the answer to any question is | that I have cancer. | WoodenChair wrote: | This essay cites no sources and provides no data to back up its | big claims and projections. It's interesting to hear what someone | close to emerging technologies is thinking, but big claims | require big evidence. It reads like reading Marx, or Kurzwell, or | other utopian "futurists" more than anything practical and | realistic. | RandomLensman wrote: | I very much like the idea of Moore's Law for a lot of things | (maybe not for everything, there could be some nasty surprises in | games of catch-up between offensive and defense). | | Setting aside social implications, it might also not quite come | to this, as not everything might be solvable by data and/or | thinking. Our understanding of nature could be correct enough in | some areas to block progress. For example, it might not be | possible to predict which atom will decay next, or maybe there | are no gravity shields possible in this universe as it is a | fundamental property of mass (very very handwaving here). | thatfrenchguy wrote: | > AI will lower the cost of goods and services, because labor is | the driving cost at many levels of the supply chain. If robots | can build a house on land you already own from natural resources | mined and refined onsite, using solar power, the cost of building | that house is close to the cost to rent the robots. And if those | robots are made by other robots, the cost to rent them will be | much less than it was when humans made them. | | The issue with rising costs of housing is not (completely) linked | to labor costs, it's land value, regulatory capture, bad | infrastructure, and heavily marketed house-in-the-suburbs-as-the- | only-way-to-live. | aqme28 wrote: | Construction is a very small part of housing costs. Outside of | rural areas, much of the cost is speculative or supply/demand. | imtringued wrote: | Construction is a big part in some locations but it doesn't | make housing unaffordable, merely expensive. | | From memory: | | Tearing a $2 million single family house and putting 6 | apartments there would allow you to charge $3k rent. Build | taller and rent drops even lower. This is assuming | construction costs of $500 per sqft. | A12-B wrote: | Rising costs of housing is, almost entirely, due to the fact | that individuals are allowed to own more houses than they can | use, while most people don't own any. It seems fairly obvious | that if you control the housing market, a human need, you can | set prices as high as they will possibly pay them. | SeanFerree wrote: | I totally agree with this! I think it will be more like 15 to 20 | years though. 5 years may be too soon. Great article! | sendtown_expwy wrote: | I like this idea, but is the technical implementation of a | progressive social policy (whether it be a tax on equity versus | something else) actually the hard part? | | Alternative take: the hard part is that the US is heterogeneous | and people just don't trust each other to not abuse benefits. | (You could also say it's racist). How could we give equity to | every person when we can't even seem to agree that they deserve | basic healthcare? | nindalf wrote: | > We will discover new jobs-we always do after a technological | revolution | | CGP grey put this well | | > Imagine a pair of horses in the early 1900s talking about | technology. One worries all these new mechanical muscles (cars | etc) will make horses unnecessary. The other horse reminds him | that everything so far has made their lives easier - remember all | that farm work? Remember running coast-to-coast delivering mail? | Remember riding into battle? All terrible! These new city jobs | are pretty cushy, and with so many humans in the cities there | will be more jobs for horses than ever. Even if this car thingy | takes off, he might say, there will be new jobs for horses we | can't imagine. | | > But you know what happened. There are still working horses, but | nothing like before. The horse population peaked in 1915 - from | that point on it was nothing but down. | | > There's no law of economics that says that better technology | makes more better jobs for horses. It sounds shockingly dumb to | even say that out loud. But swap horses for humans and suddenly | people think it sounds about right. | | "Humans need not apply" - | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU | joe_the_user wrote: | I agree that the "new jobs are generated automatically" claim | isn't supported by any good argument. | | But the horse analogy isn't good way to show this imo. I hate | to be "specie-ist" but human beings have a remarkable ability | to learn new skills and attain new abilities. Horses don't. The | human consumption of human's time, attention and so-forth is at | the center of the economy. Human consumption of horse time | isn't all that high a priority. | | Human flexibility makes human activity something that can | satisfy a vast number of human wants (and it means that there | are a vast number of those wants to satisfy). That still | doesn't mean you'll always have people employed but it makes | employment a more plausible thing. | hospadar wrote: | I hope we discover less work! | | I so agree that increasing automation doesn't always mean more | Jobs That Make Money (even if it might continue to for a while | yet). Maybe when there's less work for humans to do we just... | work less? and get more? | bobm_kite9 wrote: | Another way to think of this: imagine two equally-sized | countries A and B. A implements Sam's suggestion, taxing | everything at 2.5% pa, B doesn't. | | In A, people are happy, we'll fed, Pursuing their interests, | living meaningful lives. | | In B they are not. | | however, in A, companies and the economy are not growing so | fast: resources are funnelled into a populace that takes but | doesn't give back. | | Over a long period of time, the extra 2.5% growth in country B | will become so meaningful that it will look back on the savages | in country A and decide that it's resources would be better off | under B's management. | | It's AI colonialism. | confidantlake wrote: | The 2.5% tax doesn't mean country B is growing 2.5% faster. | The 2.5% in country B could be sitting in a vault doing | nothing or being spent on yachts. Conversely the 2.5% in | country A is being invested in making the workforce more | productive. | colinmhayes wrote: | I don't necessarily disagree but that's really not a good | analogy. Horses aren't people. When their jobs disappear no one | gives a fuck. No one speaks up for their interests. People will | not go so easy. They are able to create amazing things if given | the opportunity. No one wants mass human unemployment. | Judgmentality wrote: | You realize it's an allegory, right? | Dylan16807 wrote: | It's fine to reply to an allegory with "you're right, that | solution doesn't work, but it doesn't preclude other | solutions because of these reasons, so don't use it to make | decisions". | Judgmentality wrote: | That's very different from a comment which suggests he | doesn't realize it's an allegory. | Dylan16807 wrote: | The comment directly says it's not a good analogy. | Complaining that they didn't specifically say "allegory" | is really nitpicky. The terms are very close and overlap. | Judgmentality wrote: | If someone says Animal Farm is a good story, but it | wouldn't work if the animals were humans, I would say | they didn't get the message. | colinmhayes wrote: | Animal farm is a fictional story about humans disguised | as animals. The horse allegory is a non-fictional story | about the downfall of horses which are very much not | human-like. | Dylan16807 wrote: | Depends on what reason they gave. If they misunderstand | something about humanity, that's a great jumping point | toward discussion. | | But if they said "yes, those politics would happen in | humans, but some of these other factors are more | important toward the eventual outcome[...]" then that's | perfectly compatible with understanding the story. And | that's roughly what the earlier commenter did! They | accepted the argument that jobs will go away, while | saying the secondary and tertiary effects would be | different. | Judgmentality wrote: | Fair, I'm sure it doesn't seem like it but I really don't | want to argue. We're obviously reading that comment | differently. | | Cheers. | soperj wrote: | We already have mass human unemployment. What's the average | daily wage? It's not that low because everyone is gainfully | employed. | colinmhayes wrote: | Pre-covid, Global wages and employment levels have never | been higher. Global poverty levels have never been lower. | Either way, I don't disagree that AI will replace some | jobs, I'm just not sold on the horse story. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | Horses aren't the center of the economy, though. | | It's fundamentally different. Horses might always want more and | more things no matter how much they get. But they don't create | demand in our economy, so we'll never know. | | No matter how much humans get, they'll always want more. And | other humans will have to come up with ways to meet that | demand. | | Sure - if we ever reach a time where the entire human race says | "this is enough" and everything is automated, then there won't | be any jobs. But we're a very far way away from that point. In | 2013, 60% of people on the planet didn't even have a toilet | [1]. | | There are obvious problems. In the Western world, it certainly | seems like we don't have enough jobs for workers without | certain skillsets - or at least jobs that employers are willing | to pay minimum wage for. | | But there are also lots of jobs available. | | [1] https://slate.com/technology/2013/02/60-percent-of-the- | world... | S_A_P wrote: | I think this is a good take- Having things be better for | horses was _never_ the point of the economy. In fact horses | were probably the main driver for developing mechanical | solutions since horse ownership is expensive and time | consuming. There was no incentive to make life /jobs better | for horses, and as soon as a better replacement was available | horses were not necessary for most people. | | So you cant swap out horses for humans as they analogy is | completely flawed. | Barrin92 wrote: | >Having things be better for horses was never the point of | the economy | | Neither was making things better for humans. The point of | the economy is for capital to reproduce itself, humans | being taken care of is an accidental side effect because | capital doesn't like a torch mob very much. | maxsilver wrote: | > So you cant swap out horses for humans as they analogy is | completely flawed. | | You kind of can though. The economy cares about no one, it | cares only about capital. And as far as capital is | concerned, humans are just fancy horses. Humans are | expenses that need minimizing to the point of zeroing. In a | perfectly efficient capitalist economy, no one pays any | humans for anything ever. | sudosysgen wrote: | But having things be better for humans was never the point | of the economy either. The actual point has always been | making things better for a subset of humans, everywhere | throughout history. | | I don't see why an unemployable horse would be considered | any differently from an unemployable human to the cold | profit motive. | alpha_squared wrote: | What's the incentive to make life/jobs better for humans? | S_A_P wrote: | Incentive? not having to do hard labor? making more | money? | | I think that most technology has made life easier if not | measurably better for humans. Medicine, machinery, | transportation. Those things dont make life better for | people? I suppose the cynical take could be that it is | for the 'ruling class' but I think the measured take is | that even the lower rungs of society have at least some | access to better jobs than they did 100 years ago. | sudosysgen wrote: | The lower rungs of society have access to better jobs | because they were needed by the ruling class as a | workforce, and because technology advanced. As a result | of the above two, they were able to negotiate economic | power and better working conditions. | | What is the incentive for "wasting resources on the lower | rungs of society" when you don't need them as workers | anymore? | corecursion wrote: | As you pointed out there has been high demand for toilets | even during recent years, and yet unemployment is a thing | that still exists in the world. | | Where are all the toilet-manufacturing and toilet-installing | jobs? We certainly have the technology to produce billions of | toilets if we as a society decided to. We know there are | billions of humans who need toilets, why isn't this demand | creating jobs? Where are the toilets? | | A big part of the answer to that question is that the | billions of people who need toilets can't afford them, | because they don't have jobs that would enable them to pay | for toilets. | | Toilets are so easy to manufacture at our technological level | that toilet factories don't require many workers. Certainly | not billions of workers, but we have billions of humans who | need toilets. | | Maybe the same problem affects all products. Will technology | advance until 10000 or 10 or zero human workers will be | required to run all the factories in the entire world for | every imaginable product? Where then will billions of | unemployed humans get money to buy the products from those | factories? | sudosysgen wrote: | I can't get myself to agree with this. | | Indeed, it's true, horses don't create demand, but neither do | unemployed humans. | | Our economy isn't centred around humans, it's centred around | capital. Unemployable humans are as useless to it as horses, | as they can't exchange their labour with capital owners (or | become capital owners themselves). | | Unemployable people might want more, but will they get more? | No, they won't. | bnralt wrote: | I think there's two distinct ideas being discussed. Can | people be unemployed because of structural, societal, or | political reasons? Sure, and I think most people would | agree. We have plenty of example of that happening - | depressions, recessions, mass refugees, etc. | | But can people be unemployed because we run out of things | for humans to do? That's what the video is arguing, but it | won't be the case unless we've fully satisfied all of our | desires. If we haven't, there are, by definition, still | things to do. | | This idea was particularly popular during the recession | (the video was made on the tale end of it). It was common | to hear that the high level of unemployment was because | automation had taken our jobs or because Americans didn't | have the skills for the jobs that were needed. But much of | this was nonsense, and we saw employment gradually rebound | as we moved out of the recession. Not only nonsense, but | dangerous nonsense, since it leads people to entirely | misunderstand a solvable problem. | darawk wrote: | > I think there's two distinct ideas being discussed. Can | people be unemployed because of structural, societal, or | political reasons? Sure, and I think most people would | agree. We have plenty of example of that happening - | depressions, recessions, mass refugees, etc. | | > But can people be unemployed because we run out of | things for humans to do? That's what the video is | arguing, but it won't be the case unless we've fully | satisfied all of our desires. If we haven't, there are, | by definition, still things to do. | | The question at hand though is exactly why is this true | of humans but not horses? | joe_the_user wrote: | _But can people be unemployed because we run out of | things for humans to do?_ | | -- You'll always have something that some other human | wants the human X to do. Whether that other person can | pay human X sufficient money to make that activity their | job is the question. And it seems plausible you'll reach | a point where the answer will be no for a lot of people. | You can call that "structural" if you wish but it seems | related to the marginal utility provided by a given | person and that goes down as one finds automated | alternatives. | boring_twenties wrote: | > That's what the video is arguing, but it won't be the | case unless we've fully satisfied all of our desires. If | we haven't, there are, by definition, still things to do. | | Obviously true, but that doesn't mean the things still | left to do can be done by anyone. | | In a world where there's not enough food or housing, | everyone can be gainfully employed, since just about | everyone can learn to plant seeds or cut wood. | | In a world where all of our material desires are already | met, plenty of people will still want e.g. new AAA- | quality video games every year. But what are the people | who aren't programmers or artists supposed to do? | ls65536 wrote: | > horses don't create demand, but neither do unemployed | humans. | | Sure they do, although almost certainly nowhere near enough | to sustain our current situation and the system it's built | atop of (from which the holders of capital seem to have | benefited immensely), although perhaps this is exactly the | point you were making. | | It might not be recognizable to most people living in | modernity today, but in general humans will always trade | (by some means, not necessarily with "money") with other | humans whenever relative specializations occur between | them, which even in small groups is likely to happen | naturally. | | After all, it's not the exchange of paper bills or service | to capital in particular that makes an economy, and there | is always going to be demand of something and some supply | of some of those things as long as humans are around and | interacting, regardless of how miserable the existence is, | or how "inefficient" such a system might be. | sudosysgen wrote: | Indeed, horses like most humans do not create demand | innately, they only do so insofar as their labour must be | reproduced, which naturally is more for humans than | horses because humans can negotiate wages, but not | incredibly so for those at the bottom. | | _" It might not be recognizable to most people living in | modernity today, but in general humans will always trade | (by some means, not necessarily with "money") with other | humans whenever relative specializations occur between | them, which even in small groups is likely to happen | naturally."_ | | This is reductive. Yes, humans have always traded. But | never before our current economic system has trade been | the primary ordinator of people's lives - this is a | modern creation, indeed core to property itself. | | _" After all, it's not the exchange of paper bills or | service to capital in particular that makes an economy, | and there is always going to be demand of something and | some supply of some of those things as long as humans are | around and interacting, regardless of how miserable the | existence is, or how "inefficient" such a system might | be."_ | | This is also reductive in the same sense. Traditionally | in human society, demand and supply were not, for the | majority of people, the very core of one's life - that is | a modern invention. And that was only possible in the | framework where labour became service to capital before | service to oneself. Outside this set of relations of | production, the problem of runaway unemployment isn't | possible, because employment itself is not a major | productive force. And that's precisely how humans got | into a situation like that of workhorses - or rather how | workhorses got into the situation of humans! | erikstarck wrote: | "...it's centred around capital" | | Well, actually around value - which is different from | capital. It just so happens that we use capital to trade a | lot (but not all) of what we consider to be valuable. | | Even in a world of abundance there would be things that are | scarce but we still consider valuable. Social status for | example. | sudosysgen wrote: | Certainly, our economy is not centred around abstract | value. Value for who? What kind of value? Does value rule | the life of the average man, or does trading his labour | for access to capital and a share of it's proceeds | describe the relation one has to the economy more | accurately? | | Trade is not what I'm discussing as an abstract concept, | but instead how we structure our relationship to | sustenance and work. That is centred around capital, not | value - hence the word "capitalism". Which is not | necessarily a bad thing, in some ways this is a good | organization for things we care about, but it's not | mainly about maximizing value for everyone, it came about | very mechanistically. | koboll wrote: | >horses don't create demand, but neither do unemployed | humans. | | What Sam is proposing is massive wealth redistribution by | taxing land and capital. Seen any memes referencing $1400 | lately? Unemployed humans who are given cash absolutely | create demand. | sudosysgen wrote: | Certainly, if you put wealth redistribution into the | equation, then we don't have this argument anymore. But | I'm arguing in the abstract sense outside of government | intervention or structural modification. | | Besides, massive wealth redistribution in the form of | direct payments indiscriminately is not politically | viable right now, but maybe this line of argument can | help. | imtringued wrote: | If you could restrain those pesky humans or prevent them from | reproducing then it would be a valid concern. | aksss wrote: | As prosperity increases, growth booms but then predictably | falls below replacement rate. So humans kind of do this on | their own if you can get through the boom period without | breaking things too badly. | NortySpock wrote: | But why would we not see "those who desire to have kids" | out-reproduce those who don't have kids, within a few | generations? | rmah wrote: | Yes, some people will get screwed end up like those out-of-work | horses because of AI or automation. Other people will benefit | greatly. On average, most people will benefit a little bit. | This is how every technological advance has worked for the last | few hundred years. The promise of higher efficiency == higher | standard of living is a general promise for society as a whole, | not for any particular individual. | [deleted] | csomar wrote: | > democracy can become antagonistic as people seek to vote money | away from each other. | | ... | | > We should therefore focus on taxing capital rather than labor | | I find it amazing that these "thinkers" don't see the irony. You | are "afraid" that people are going to vote you away from your | wealth via democracy; but then you feel privileged to decide how | this wealth should be taxed. Since AIs are getting smarter than | humans, maybe we should let them decide? | | > and AI teachers that can diagnose and explain exactly what a | student doesn't understand. | | Since AIs are smarter than humans, why bother teaching humans at | all? Unless there is a point where a developed human brain could | outsmart the AI, it seems to be a waste and emotionally guided. | | > We could do something called the American Equity Fund. | | Any solution that is not universal is bound the fail. These | companies can move overseas to cut their tax bill. It also easier | than moving now since all they need to move is data; electronics | being already made in Asia. | | The reality is, there is no place for humans in an AI driven | world where AI is smarter than humans and robots can make stuff. | Realizing that is the first step to move forward in this new | world. | core-questions wrote: | > The reality is, there is no place for humans in an AI driven | world where AI is smarter than humans and robots can make | stuff. | | Luckily, that's a hell of a lot further away than AI bulls | indicate. Can't even use AI to help with hiring people without | it getting cancelled as racist, after all. | tempestn wrote: | If you want to follow that chain of logic, then the thing to do | would be to either find a way to prove that a sufficiently AI | would be conscious, or to augment human consciousness with AI. | Because even if AI's are superior to humans at everything, if | they're not self-aware, you still need humans or other | conscious animals for anything to have a point - you need | someone to experience the stuff that exist. And humans aren't | built to be happy existing simply as consumers, so if humans | are going to be those experiencers, they need to be involved in | creation, not just consumption. | csbartus wrote: | > Realizing that is the first step to move forward in this new | world. | | Right, we've become disposable. Up until the computer era we | were part of the equation. We went to war, to vote, and we paid | taxes - making ourselves useful for state and capital. | | Now, they don't need us anymore. We are a burden for the state | (universal basic income) and capital plays its own game (high | frequency trading). | | Samuel Butler was right in Erewhon (1872): "Advertising is the | way we grant power to the machine" | | AI is powered by advertising, by the data we voluntarily feed | into the machine. For the false reward of shining the ego. | | Yes, we must admit, as a specie we are highly disappointing. | Instead of lifting ourselves we've created a monster above us. | naringas wrote: | > Since AIs are smarter than humans, why bother teaching humans | at all? Unless there is a point where a developed human brain | could outsmart the AI, it seems to be a waste and emotionally | guided. | | taking this point and running off with it. why bother having | humans at all? let's all become a simulation and live within a | computer. | colinmhayes wrote: | That's the goal. Infinite jest. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | But, by your exact same logic: Why bother having humans _even | within the simulation_? An AI will out-perform them there as | well. | | I suggest that the original logic was flawed... | mbesto wrote: | > Since AIs are smarter than humans, why bother teaching humans | at all? Unless there is a point where a developed human brain | could outsmart the AI, it seems to be a waste and emotionally | guided. | | The obscurity for the definition of AI is precisely what drives | this. The term AI is so vague among tech circles that I find | the term basically laughable at this point. | | If we're talking about sentient AI, then none of these concepts | matter. We'll have WAY more interesting problems to deal with. | stevenhuang wrote: | > The reality is, there is no place for humans in an AI driven | world where AI is smarter than humans and robots can make | stuff. | | You need to read more sci-fi. The Culture series by Ian Banks | is a good start. | | Of course there is dystopic fiction too, but the point is there | are many possibilities of what life post-ai may look like | | Nothing says it has to work out the way you think so stating | that so confidently is unwarranted. | ALittleLight wrote: | But in The Culture series humans have no meaningful role and | everything that humans can do machines can do better. Some | extreme edge cases may apply to very specific things, but | even then, it's one or two individual humans being useful | contributors out of countless trillions. | | I agree that The Culture is the science fiction future to | aspire to - but the place for humans in The Culture is just | enjoying how good society is once machines and AI do | everything for you. Importantly, the AI's of The Culture like | humans and want to promote human flourishing. | | If human+ level AGI is achieved then I think it does have to | work out the way the parent is stating. There will be no | useful role for the vast majority of humans. Humans are | intelligence plus the physical capabilities of our bodies. | Machines can already exceed our physical capabilities in most | things, and if artificial intelligence exceeds ours - what | will be left for humans? | stevenhuang wrote: | If that was the point parent was making then I agree as | well, there would indeed be no useful role for humanity. | | > Importantly, the AI's of The Culture like humans and want | to promote human flourishing | | Yes, perhaps this was what I wanted to highlight, that even | if we are to end up in such a situation, it could be | beneficial. | visarga wrote: | > Since AIs are smarter than humans, why bother teaching humans | at all? | | Just give humans cell phones and social accounts, and let them | eat fake news all day. Problem solved. | | But the flip side is that creatives and inventors will be | empowered to achieve more. | imtringued wrote: | I have decided to replace AI (and robots) with Orcs in your | comment. | | > We should therefore focus on taxing capital rather than labor | | I find it amazing that these "thinkers" don't see the irony. | You are "afraid" that people are going to vote you away from | your wealth via democracy; but then you feel privileged to | decide how this wealth should be taxed. Since Orcs are getting | smarter than humans, maybe we should let them decide? | | > and Orc teachers that can diagnose and explain exactly what a | student doesn't understand. | | Since Orcs are smarter than humans, why bother teaching humans | at all? Unless there is a point where a developed human brain | could outsmart the Orcs, it seems to be a waste and emotionally | guided. | | > We could do something called the American Equity Fund. | | Any solution that is not universal is bound the fail. These | companies can move overseas to cut their tax bill. It also | easier than moving now since all they need to move is data; | electronics being already made in Asia. | | The reality is, there is no place for humans in an Orc driven | world where Orcs are smarter than humans and Orcs can make | stuff. Realizing that is the first step to move forward in this | new world. | | Now try replacing humans with your nationality (e.g. Americans) | and Orcs with people of a different nationality from yours to | get even closer to reality. | chishaku wrote: | > emotionally guided | | > move forward | | What do you mean by these phrases? | | Can you elaborate on your framework for value? | csomar wrote: | > emotionally guided | | As humans, we emotionally feel sympathy toward other animals | of the human race. Bonus points if they look similar | (ethnically). | | > move forward | | Without honestly realizing what an AI driven world means, any | "solution" is just vaporware talks, and will probably mean we | are not ready when the shift happens. | ch33zer wrote: | I think that this essay assumes the possibility of infinite | growth. That runs into the reality that we are actively running | into the limitations of our interactions with the natural world. | What else is climate change but an indication that we've reached | the limit of what we can produce using our current technology. | Now, it is possible that we can find a way to reduce our impact | on the earth while continuing to grow, but I'm not sure that we | can do that AND generate the astronomical growth this essay | requires. | dvdhnt wrote: | Well, that's the dirty secret, isn't it? | | It's hard to get this crowd to admit that "growth" isn't | infinite. | WalterGR wrote: | As I recall, Ray Kurzweil wrote extensively about this - minus | the tax aspect - in his book The Singularity is Near. | Barrin92 wrote: | This is basically the generic singularity blogpost that comes out | every few months or so. And at this point could probably be | written by GPT-3, would be a nice experiment if someone could | tell the difference | | Either way two major things wrong with this. First off, there | isn't actually a whole lot of evidence that we're living in the | most innovative time in history and that the robots are coming | for us. Productivity growth is low, employment is high. If | technology was eliminating labour, the opposite would be | happening. We'd be growing at 7% per year while we'd have | bazillions of unemployed people roaming the street. | | Secondly, and this is very typical for SV liberalism/centrism | there is absolutely no understanding of power in this article and | we just solve things by doing 'the right policies' which is | 'simple' and then everything is fine. Of course if that was so | simple we'd already be doing it to begin with. | | We don't need some futuristic 2200 utopia to solve child poverty. | We actually could do all the things mentioned in the article | _literally right now_. You could have been taxing the shit out of | land in 1800. The question Sam Altman needs to answer is why the | technolords of the future don 't just simply hire some Terminator | Pinkertons to mow down everyone who wants to get their hands on | some of their riches. | jay_kyburz wrote: | This essay doesn't address any of the key problems often raised | when talking about AI and UBI. | | Here is Australia we are already seeing one the effects of very | cheap stuff. Skilled labor is significantly more expensive than | buying things, so anything that has to have an Australian | involved is ridiculously expensive. Calling the Plumber to fix a | drain? That's a week of groceries or perhaps a new TV. | | At some point soon there is going to be a fairly significant | upheaval, not just when AI takes some peoples jobs, but when it's | just not wort it to pay somebody $200 an hour to do something for | you. I think to some extent, peoples time is linked to the price | of products you can buy. | | Eventually, Plumbers won't need $200 an hour to buy their own | things, they can drop their rates. Wages everywhere might fall. | | Taxing land sounds fair enough, but I was under the impression we | are already subsidizing a lot of farming anyhow, and since we are | racing to the bottom on food pricing, there is not much profit to | be made on food anyhow. | | Any aren't we supposed to be reclaiming land to turn back into | national parks, planting trees, and capturing carbon. | psoots wrote: | > Economic growth matters because most people want their lives to | improve every year. | | Improve how? Should I need economic growth to get better health | care? This whole techno-utopian argument seems to hinge on | extractive growth because it fails to actually tackle the | problems of inequality by providing true redistribution of wealth | in any meaningful sense. Trickle-down AI is a sham. | mdpopescu wrote: | Let's build a system that's pretty much indistinguishable from | socialism, but call it capitalism. That way, when it inevitably | fails, we'll blame capitalism. | | Yep. I saw this movie before. | asbund wrote: | If they could make gpt-4 more coherent than gpt3 and could show | understanding on causality than this blog will be more agreeable | for me | lucasmullens wrote: | > If everyone owns a slice of American value creation, everyone | will want America to do better: collective equity in innovation | and in the success of the country will align our incentives. | | I kind of doubt that. At Google we're paid in part with shares of | GOOG, but at Google's scale that's just treated as cash | compensation. At my level, nothing I do affects the stock price, | and most Googlers feel this way. | | Sure, I want Google to do well, and I want America to do well | too. Both of them doing well benefits me. But it doesn't really | encourage me to do something different day-to-day. | JohnJamesRambo wrote: | You never know. Butterfly effect and all that. It adds up. Best | example I know of is when I was younger and playing WoW, my | brother was explaining gemming your gear to me. I told him | "what will a +4 intelligence gem do really?" But you add up all | the gems on all the sockets on the gear and it makes a huge | difference. The difference being the difference between a | strong character and a weak one and living or dying. Each you | in google is a potential gem in the system. Or you can be an | empty socket. Add all those up and it does have a huge effect | on the outcome of Google (and the stock price). | | I apply this theory to many diverse subjects- voting, finances, | human health and car maintenance (once one system is suboptimal | or impaired, others often follow). Keep your sockets gemmed. :) | random_kris wrote: | So nicely said. I read a quote somewhere about ancient big | buildings... Like stonemasons that were crafting stones had | to imagine each stone beating really important in the bigger | picture. The quote said it better than me here. | ChrisLomont wrote: | >You never know. Butterfly effect and all that. It adds up. | | The butterfly effect affects most no physical systems, which | contain incredible amounts of damping processes. The same | thing happens with people - if a zillion of them want things | that point in somewhat different directions, the net does not | add up, it cancels. | | Otherwise most physical systems would simply explode to | infinities, but in practice they don't. They dissipate and | become less useful. | | Basically, the sum of noise is zero. | pgsimp wrote: | I live in a city with high rents. What would it look like if | everybody had a shot at fulfilling their economic dreams? Let's | say their dream is to live in the center of the city, in one of | those flats that now cost 2 million dollars. | | So society is obliged to give everybody a shot at that 2 million | dollar flat, no matter what their line of work or their | qualifications are. How is that supposed to work? | | Some things still are limited and will probably always be | limited, unless everybody can live in virtual reality in their | ideal world. | BirdieNZ wrote: | I don't know if this completely answers your question, but it | won't be high rent if a land value tax is implemented | correctly. | xiphias2 wrote: | I have an idea for sharing wealth: Why not create a non-profit | organization that democratizes AI by sharing its models openly | with everyone? | lincolnq wrote: | I know you are being sarcastic, but I don't know if everyone | understands Sam Altman's motivation for running OpenAI the way | it's being run. Sam is trying to create AI which causes the | greatest benefit for humanity. That's openAI's mission. Open | sourcing everything now would not achieve the mission. | | In case the "why" is not obvious: AI progress is limited by a) | great research talent; b) money -- specifically being able to | invest in compute. If OpenAI were to open source everything, | they would not be able to raise the money they need to invest | in compute, which would cause a death spiral in their ability | to attract and retain their researchers. They need to have a | story for why they will make money in the short term to | continue being a top tier AI research org. And since AI is | "winner take all", it is likely worse for the world if a less | altruistic company takes all the talent and source code. | | If your point is just that OpenAI is a misnomer now, I agree | :). It's not open. But I do think they have settled on a | surprisingly good point in solution space (the capped-profit | company, the charter, etc); I don't see ways to validly | criticize the company from an altruism perspective. | xiphias2 wrote: | AI progress is not limited at all, it's the fastest moving | research field in the world (5x improvement in efficiency / | year for training a task to the same precision for the same | cost if I recall correctly, far better than Moore's law). | | OpenAI is opening the world to AI and helping people just | like Google's doing ,,no evil'', Facebook is connecting | people. At the point when an organization gets big enough to | not keep its original values (being open for OpenAI), it's | not better (less altruistic) in ,,making the world a better | place'' than any other organization. Competition and having | the power of AI distributed in more companies is good though | (until they acquire each other). | forgotmypw17 wrote: | We could call it... Open AI? | cphajduk wrote: | Time to start: | | ActuallyOpenAI ^TM | joe_the_user wrote: | _In the next five years, computer programs that can think will | read legal documents and give medical advice._ | | Aside from the other points, taking "AI" as it exists in it's | present form (deep neural networks and related) as specifically | the bringer of unlimited wealth certainly puffs up the various | "AI companies" notably OpenAI (It should be noted that OpenAI's | most famous product, GPT-3, can generate strings that sound a lot | like legal or medical advice but it so far "demonstrates non- | understanding on a regular basis". Don't follow it's advice to | kill yourself, for example). | | It really should be said that deep learning, in particular, is | still just one technology that's very good at some things, kind | of impressive but not functional at other things, and just unable | to do other things (actual understanding of biology, for example, | seems well beyond them). I don't think this situation has changed | since deep learning began it's hype cycle (which isn't to say | it's "nothing", it just doesn't seem like to bring us | "everything", a scenario the article literally sketches). | | Automation has proceeded apace, automation in general has brought | us enough resources right now to give minimal comfort to most | people in the planet (as people have noted). | | But automation has generally succeeded in situations where | everything is controlled - ie, factories. Self-driving cars are | forever five years away given the 5% or 1% or whatever level of | unpredictable variable involved. Progress on robots that can | interact well with either humans or "the messy real world" even | in very limited terms has been painfully slow and I expect this | to continue. | niels_bom wrote: | Thanks. I was starting to think I was the only one not | believing in the AI hype train. | joe_the_user wrote: | One other thing I'd like to add. | | The scenario of AI mostly replacing people like doctors and | lawyers involves bizarre paradoxes beyond whether deep learning | "AI" works as advertised. Suppose you can train an "AI" to read | legal papers or diagnose patients based on X-rays. That | training is done from the data of real life lawyers and doctors | actions. Suppose, best case scenario (very unrealistic imo | btw), you have a complete "snapshot" of the behavior of lawyers | and doctors in a given year. The problem is reality changes, | you need new lawyering and doctoring behaviors after N years. | Doctors need interpret new maladies, lawyers need to cite new | decisions and both need to interpret new language forms that | appear. But if you've actually removed the real lawyers and | doctors, where would you get the new training data? | | And this is just taking AI at it's word. | kart23 wrote: | In 1995, a self driving car drove 98% of the way across the | country. Think what these same people predicting AI today would | have predicted in 1995. They would probably believe we were 10 | years away from self driving cars in every household. We still | dont have a mass produced level 3 system in 2021. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_self-driving_cars | msikora wrote: | > technological progress follows an exponential curve | | This is a mantra that I keep hearing, but if I compare the | progress from 1900 to 1960 and then from 1960 to 2020, it almost | seems like it has been flattening... Sure, we have internet and | fancy computers, but the progress from 1900 to 1960 was immense: | air travel, electrification, proliferation of automobiles, | immense progress in medicine, space exploration, nuclear energy. | Even the MOSFET transistor was invented in 1959. | | Not saying there wasn't any progress between 1960 and 2020, but | it sure doesn't look "accelerating"... | goatlover wrote: | He's rehashing Kurzweil's analysis of history, which is to | broadly fit a few data points to show that exponential growth | is baked into the universe. And then go in to claim that the | next 100 years is going to be something 20,000 years of 20th | century progress. | | But I don't see that the 2000s are progressing any faster than | the 80s and 90s. It looks fairly linear since the 50s or 60s | overall. smartphones and Deep Learning are incremental progress | over what existed before. | wmf wrote: | He's just talking about performance, not qualitative progress. | sneak wrote: | It's a bummer that while he starts out talking about a global | revolution that will profoundly affect all human beings, he | smoothly transitions into tax policy opinions and suggestions | that, in a best case scenario, will affect about 3.5% of human | beings (Americans). | | Most of the world is not American, and for every American, there | are around 19 people who are not. | | > _If everyone owns a slice of American value creation, everyone | will want America to do better:_ | | Americans say "everyone" when they mean "Americans". "Everyone" | is actually 20x larger. (In a section on inclusivity, no less!) | second--shift wrote: | I read some time ago (I think as a link here) the following: | https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist... | | One of my takeaways is that growth cannot exist forever; there is | a thermal bound to how much energy (economy = energy consumption, | if you reduce it enough) we can produce and consume. Another | commenter posted that if you zoom out enough, economic growth is | exponential. I tend to agree, at least backwards-looking, so I | think of intervals of economic progress as "doubling" (ie, | logarithmic instead of linear). | | We only have a few more doublings before we hit some serious | thermal discomfort. The "AI Revolution" as dreamed in the OP I | think is largely impossible: if the AI/Robots/Whatever get | sufficiently advanced they will require orders of magnitude more | energy than we already consume, which would run the risk of | cooking us all. | | I would rather see someone or someones trying to break the | economy = energy paradigm. At some point, we will be unable to | generate more useful energy; I'd like to see us do more with | less. | iMuzz wrote: | Great read. | | > "We could do something called the American Equity Fund. The | American Equity Fund would be capitalized by taxing companies | above a certain valuation 2.5% of their market value each year, | payable in shares transferred to the fund.." | | I could be in favor of something like this. | | However, I'd be curious to hear Sam's thoughts on what kind of | vehicle do we use to _ensure_ that this equity actually reaches | end-users? | | I can make a very strong historical case that the government is | not the right vehicle for this to work. You could also just look | at the most recent $1.9T stimulus bill -- where only a fraction | of it went out as checks to Americans in need. | adambaybutt wrote: | He's seems open to the idea that it is just a transfer to a | citizen's brokerage account which could be a service provided | by the private market. | dgellow wrote: | Slightly off topic regarding the 1.9T: Where did the rest go? | wmf wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Rescue_Plan_Act_of_20. | .. | fungiblecog wrote: | Maybe in the Hacker News echo chamber this all sounds plausible. | | But where I live in the real world all I see is software getting | worse and worse. It doesn't do ANYTHING automatically anymore and | can't be scripted, every 'app' is a silo and has to be constantly | tended to by humans. Useful functionality is actually removed and | more time is spent on UI visuals than making it usable. This is | made worse by the tendency of surveillance software to require | humans to interact with it constantly in order to harvest | information, interactions or to display ads. | | At some point this bubble will burst, the ridiculous tech | valuations will crash and we'll be back looking for solutions to | real problems again. | dvdhnt wrote: | The beginning of the "Capitalism for Everyone" section is | laughably out of touch with the reality of 2021. | | However, buried further down is an agreeable point: | | > We should therefore focus on taxing capital rather than labor | | Yes, along with repatriation of capital so tax payers can't stash | their cash abroad. | [deleted] | unreal6 wrote: | "This revolution will generate enough wealth for everyone to have | what they need, if we as a society manage it responsibly." | | I worry that this is already the case, and we are already failing | miserably. Globally we seem to have enough resources to feed, | clothe, and shelter the global population and in a number of | cases (see the USA) to be unable to do so. | aksss wrote: | Are we failing "miserably"? I mean, global poverty is down, | down, down.[0] Famine mortality is down, down, down (in spite | of population going up, up, up). [1] Not everyone gets an | Escalade and a 5k square-foot home, but arguably they shouldn't | be using those anyway. But it seems like in terms of what | people "need" (food, shelter, clothing), globally humans are | enjoying unprecedented prosperity, despite the enormous gaps | that can and will exist - the mean seems higher. I'd call that | improvement, not failure in the immediate sense, though of | course this is all coming at a price to the environment whose | balance due is only starting to be realized. | | [0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/size-poverty-gap-world | [1] https://sites.tufts.edu/wpf/files/2017/08/famine- | mortality-b... | lucasmullens wrote: | We're improving rapidly, but I think we need to set our | expectations higher. According to givewell.org, it only costs | between $3000 and $5000 to save a life. There's a lot of | people who could give that amount and don't, so there's a lot | of lives that could be saved that aren't. And that's a pretty | miserable failure to me. | aksss wrote: | We can always do better, that's for sure. Charitable giving | is massively high in the US as a percentage of GDP | though[1]. Individual giving is the highest source of that | money[2]. That's a testament to something good, I think. | That more people could give more and don't is a failure at | an individual level, but systemically the globe is reducing | poverty on its current track. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_char | itabl... | | [2] https://givingusa.org/giving-usa-2020-charitable- | giving-show... | bpodgursky wrote: | Well, a few decades ago, it took maybe $200 to save a life. | We're certainly trending right. | aksss wrote: | That's fascinating.. so human lives are worth more, or | there's more friction to intervention these days? Hoping | it's the former. But curious what you think the | explanation is for this. Just a reflection in standard of | living, and so the cost to save has a higher standard? | bpodgursky wrote: | A few decades ago, mass famine was still a thing, and all | it took to keep people alive was food aid. Ex, the famine | in Ethiopia which killed a million+: https://en.wikipedia | .org/wiki/1983%E2%80%931985_famine_in_Et... | | Food insecurity is still a thing, but the only mass | starvation is driven by conflict in hard-to-reach places | like Yemen, where you can't just easily ship food and | save a million lives. | | Now, the most effective aid interventions are campaigns | like de-worming and Malaria; but those are more of a QALY | calculation, where you de-worm 100 kids to prevent | serious disease in some subset of them. Which overall | drives the cost up, but is actually a good trend. | boring_twenties wrote: | I think it's more that the lowest hanging fruit have | already been picked. In other words, all the lives that | could be saved for $200 have already been saved. If I'm | right about that it would seem to be an unambiguously | good thing. | zz865 wrote: | I still dont really know about AI taking over the world. The most | expensive things in my budget are housing, car, healthcare, | childcare, flights/hotels, food. Does AI really change that much? | There are definitely too many over-educated people out there | already, I'd think this is more of an impact & setting up | disappointment than the bots. | colinmhayes wrote: | Robots building houses on cheap land due to mass work form home | would make housing much cheaper. Robot doctors make healthcare | much cheaper. Robot teachers make childcare/education much | cheaper. Robot farmers + GMO make food much cheaper. | imtringued wrote: | If a house is all I needed I could just move out to some 20km | away location and get one for 60kEUR. You would have to do | your own renovations but isn't that part of the deal when you | buy a house? But I will concede that automation increases | productivity and gives us access to more goods and services. | It's absolutely necessary. | pgsimp wrote: | I don't think building costs are the main issue with | availability of housing. You need the land to build on - and | not just any land, but land in desired locations. | | How are the artificial mega cities in China doing? Didn't | they build several cities from scratch that are supposed to | house several million people each? | jessriedel wrote: | The time you spend in your car is more valuable than the cost | of the car itself (including gas, repairs, etc). So insofar as | you can free that time with an autonomous vehicle, it can | absolutely slash the total cost of transportation. | | To a lesser extent, similar things can be said about your other | examples. | visarga wrote: | > Does AI really change that much? | | About all the things you listed - housing, transportation, | education, food and travel are being impacted by digitization | and AI. | core-questions wrote: | Phrasing things as an optimization problem can result in | better, more efficient arrangements than how things are | presently, but only within the limits that people are willing | to accept. It also depends what we're optimizing for - if we | naively set it for "maximum number of humans fed and cared | for", we really are all going to be eating bugs and living in | pods. | adambaybutt wrote: | A society built via capitalism just gives people what they | want; not maximizing some arbitrary objective function. | | We currently have no capitalist societies on earth. | core-questions wrote: | Sounds like an instance of the No True Scotsman fallacy to | me, friend. What is capitalism if not the systems that | purport to be it? It's like saying "communism has never | been tried". They tried _something_, and they certainly | labelled it communism. | | That said, I do find the Equity Fund idea interesting, | though it's not entirely clear what this looks like in | practice, especially for the unbanked, the mentally ill, | homeless people, etc. who might not really know what to do | with shares, since some of them don't really know what to | do with cash, either. Seems to me these are the people most | in need of uplift, no? | | I'm not too worried about most lawyers getting automated | out of a job anytime soon, after all, to the extent where I | want to see the economy overturned for the likes of them. | bawolff wrote: | > In the next five years, computer programs that can think will | read legal documents and give medical advice. In the next decade, | they will do assembly-line work | | Wait, medical advice is easier than assembly line work?? | AlexandrB wrote: | For AI, probably yes[1]. Arbitrary sensing and motion are | surprisingly hard. Any problem that can be expressed as pure | data is easier by comparison. | | [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox | bawolff wrote: | I would assume a big difference is its easy to redesign | assembly lines to be easy for computers. We cant do the same | for our bodies. | dgellow wrote: | i can already imagine the quality of medical and legal advices | we will get from an AI trained on public internet data :) | maxerickson wrote: | One factor is that assembly line work is already subject to a | lot of automation. | tvanantwerp wrote: | Imagine: 1) I'm the owner of a single family home 2) My income | drops to roughly zero because of AI 3) My property values go | through the roof 4) I now owe 2.5% of these sky-rocketing | property values every year, to be paid from my non-existent | income | | Doesn't this scenario lead to me either selling my "gifted" | shares to pay property taxes, or ending up a renter at best and | homeless at worst? I can imagine this proposal leading to | _greater_ concentrations of wealth rather than spreading it | around. | zz865 wrote: | I think if most people are in 2) then 3) isn't going to happen. | tvanantwerp wrote: | I include 3 because Altman assumes it. Even if property | values stay the same--or even drop--I think it would not be a | fun situation for home owners. | mdorazio wrote: | If your property value doubles and you lose your job, why | wouldn't you sell your property for a massive gain, take that | money and buy a new house somewhere cheaper, thereby avoiding | the tax issue entirely? Seems like a situation where you want | to have your cake and eat it, too. | Aunche wrote: | Property values generally rise because an area has a very | attractive jobs market. Overall, it's a benefit to society to | incentivize people with no income to move out an area with a | lower cost of living. This incentivizes more people move there | and do productive work, which can be taxed and distributed. | tvanantwerp wrote: | I just find something very cold and socially undesirable in | the idea that somebody can spend a lifetime putting in the | work to get the home they want, only to be forced out because | "society" decides they are no longer productive. I'm no NIMBY | --those people shouldn't have the right to stop others from | developing their own properties--but I'm not sure I like the | idea of economic incentives kicking the least productive to | the curb because it's "efficient". | Aunche wrote: | If being taxed 2.5% a year counts as being "forced out," | then staying in a highly productive area of land | indefinitely is "forcing" people who can otherwise move to | your house to stay poor. Never mind that it's the wealthy | are the ones who benefit from elimination of property | taxes. | | It's society that makes the property valuable in the first | place, so it makes sense to pay society back. The | firefighters, schools, and social workers in your area need | to get paid extra to account for the cost of living | increases. That money should come from the people benefit | the most from their services, the property owners. | imtringued wrote: | > because "society" decides they are no longer productive. | | You have to consider the benchmark. Do people deserve to | live in a castle if they aren't productive enough? | | Living in a single family home in the middle of NYC | requires a whole lot of productivity because you are | literally displacing dozens of other people. You have to be | as productive as all those people combined to be worthy of | replacing them. | goesnowhere wrote: | A land value tax taxes the value of the land not the things | built on it. It hurts speculators/landlords and benefits people | who build/improve. | | It works very differently than a propery tax. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok2uR3btMrE | elmomle wrote: | A variant of this is responsible for the rise of oligarchy | during de-Sovietization in Russia. Citizens were given shares | of state companies, but people's basic needs weren't met. This | resulted in most shares being sold to whomever would buy them | for any amount of money or basic resources. This, along with | the general power vacuum, led to the rapid consolidation of | massive amounts of power in the hands of whoever managed to | wield local power for their benefit at the time--those who | became the oligarchs. | | Bill Browder writes a bit about it in his book, Red Notice. The | book is also a great cautionary tale that the whole narrative | that we can spread democratic ideals by making business deals | with with corrupt/despotism regimes is smoke. It leads to more | corruption, less moral authority, and further empowered | despots. | dane-pgp wrote: | > I now owe 2.5% of these sky-rocketing property values every | year | | Just as a UBI gives people an income floor, I think that a land | tax should come with a personal allowance below which you are | exempt. | | To do some rough calculations, the US state with the highest | population density is New Jersey, at 1,210.1 people per square | mile, which equates to 23,038 square feet per person. The | average American house size is apparently 2,687 square feet, | which is typically shared by multiple people, so the allowance | could be comfortably set to maybe 10,000 square feet per | person. | notahacker wrote: | Even without the hypothetical AI effect on income, this is a | proposal which will tax you 100% of the value of your property | over a 40 year period whilst over the same period YC's LPs and | founders will have paid just 2.5% of the [much higher] value of | their companies. | | Now there are efficiency arguments in favour of taxing land to | encourage its use and not taxing productive enterprises or | their investors too heavily, but this is pretty extreme... | larsiusprime wrote: | > which will tax you 100% of the value of your property | | If it's a property tax, yes. If it's a land tax, no. Under | land tax you tax the "ground rent" value of the land, not | what's built on it. "Ground rent" is what it costs to rent | out your land if it was an empty lot with nothing on it. | Property tax and land tax are very different things with very | different effects. | tvanantwerp wrote: | In high-demand cities, the land is the expensive part--not | the house on top of it. | larsiusprime wrote: | Right you are, and the land tax is specifically designed | to destroy the speculative activity that causes it to | increase forever. | goesnowhere wrote: | Yeah thats kinda the point. | notahacker wrote: | The Georgist land value (which Altman suggests might be | more practically replaced by a system linked to actual | property transaction values) is still going to be a | sufficiently large proportion of the value of a typical | home to ensure pretty much anyone not living in a | multistorey tenement block is paying massively higher tax | rates on their home than anyone pays on a YC company. | colinmhayes wrote: | As it should be. Single family homes are wasteful, they | should cost more. | larsiusprime wrote: | One of the chief purposes of a land tax is to destroy the | speculative activity which drives land prices up forever | and ever. | imtringued wrote: | The entire point of land value taxes is to turn land into | a liability. You don't get to benefit from the | accomplishments of other people. You only get to benefit | from your own accomplishments e.g. by building a | multistory tenant block and renting it out. | xrd wrote: | There are some really smart ideas in here, and some really smart | assessments of existing policies. | | The thing I was most taken aback by was Sam's suggestion to tax | privately held land, and capital (as opposed to labor tax). | | I would love to have Sam and PG go toe to toe and discuss how | Sam's proposal is different from the wealth tax post PG made. I | don't immediately see how Sam's idea avoids the "wealth tax | compounds" problem (his words not mine) that PG is worried about. | | http://paulgraham.com/wtax.html | SamBam wrote: | I don't see the issue with the wealth tax compounding, because | the wealth _also_ compounds. | | That's exactly the "problem" with wealth (from the perspective | of society's growing wealth inequality). Wealth compounds much, | much faster than income grows. Someone who inherits $3 million | (not much from the point of view of the wealthy) can live | comfortably on the growth alone while _still_ compounding their | wealth further every year. | | The only way a wealth tax would compound faster than the wealth | itself is if it is larger than the growth rate of the wealth. | And since that's averaged at ~8-10% over the past few decades, | a 1% tax is not going to eat into a person's wealth over time. | It's simply going to slightly slow that growth down. | tvanantwerp wrote: | As far as I can tell, it's not different. Unless you could | consistently generate the 2.5% property value to pay the tax | each year (in a world where AI has sent incomes to zero!), then | you'll eventually lose your property. | goesnowhere wrote: | But if everyone is poor then prices drop... | imtringued wrote: | That's just an argument for why wealth taxes should never go | above 2%. If you can't double or triple your wealth in 60 years | what are you doing with it? | colinmhayes wrote: | The estimation of 15% loss of market cap due to the 2.5% cap | tax is laughable. That is effectively a reverse buyback of 2.5% | every year. It would leave many companies with 0 or negative | profit. Any company with P/E above 40 immediately loses money. | 20 has their profit chopped in half. The values of these | companies would be reduced by at least 50%. | larsiusprime wrote: | Land Value tax has a long history in economics; it acts very | differently from capital and wealth taxes because Land really | behaves differently from those two classes of things. I highly | recommend reading Henry George on the subject, who originally | popularized the idea. | | Note "Land Tax" != "Property Tax." Land tax taxes only the | value of the underlying "ground rent", NOT the value of the | improvements (stuff you build on land). Property Tax taxes | both. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax | adambaybutt wrote: | Sam's proposal doesn't avoid the wealth tax compounds simple | arithmetic that PG notes. | | And yes many important questions for society to answer on this, | e.g. how much does is disincentivize entrepreneurs if they have | half of their wealth taxed away over the decades compared to | current taxation system? | xrd wrote: | <joke> | | Just a thought experiment: let's say we take Sam's ideas | alongside something like UBI, where everyone has a baseline | of income provided by the society they live in. | | You succeed wildly, and get rich as an entrepreneur. Sadly, | in a generation or two, your grandchildren will be back with | the rest of the plebeians, despite grandpops launching YC, | writing books on art and coding and creating an bunch of | amazing companies. But, your grandkids are now not motivated | by escaping the poverty they live in, but by a simple desire | to live differently than the other normal people out there | (also living on UBI). | | This seems a lot like what happens in places like Russia or | Venezuela or Brazil, where the best and the brightest (often | from upper crust there) flee their countries to make it big | in Europe, US or the Middle East, but not always because they | have such horrible lives there. | | Except that, unlike entrepreneurs driven by a mindset that | has them feel like it is never enough, these ones are just | trying to escape the ennui of boredom of suburbia, and | slipping back into that isn't so awful. The alternative drive | of escaping poverty does something very different and | rapacious: see Tyco and Dennis Kozlowski: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kozlowski, who despite | enormous wealth couldn't stop himself from having his company | pay for even his rugs. | | It's like the best of communism, and the best of capitalism! | | </joke> | | Seriously, isn't there an interesting space for entrepreneurs | in a new world like the one Sam is describing? | hyko wrote: | _If robots can build a house on land you already own from natural | resources mined and refined onsite_ | | ... | | If you think that's cool, you'll love my upcoming seminar: "How | To Live Mortgage Free Using A House and Land You Already Paid | Cash For!" | justicezyx wrote: | I am more and more amused by Sam's ambition of describing so- | called plans for Humans, while at the same time is 1 year younger | than myself, who had co-founded a failed startup loopt based on | sharing location information; and joined YC because of largely | Paul Graham and him being somewhat liked each other without much | deep connections, and eventually become chairman of YC; then now | co-founded OpenAI as the one working business side of the org. | | I don't think Sam is using his time and energy wisely. But I | could be wrong. Who knows. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Altman | lincolnq wrote: | What do you think he should be doing instead? | Pandabob wrote: | A little off-topic but I've been thinking about technological | progress and its impact on inflation recently. In 2018 Jay Powell | partly blamed Amazon (and others) for pushing prices down so much | that the fed wasn't able to hit its inflation targets [0]. Isn't | Sam's vision also inherently deflationary? If consumer prices | keep dropping due to technological progress, shouldn't we keep | printing money? | | I'm still a little sceptical of Sam's vision coming to pass, but | if it does, it'll have some weird consequences on monetary | policy. | | [0]: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/01/new-fed-chairman-says- | amazon... | walleeee wrote: | you'd think by 2021 we'd have wised up to this tired fever dream | whateveracct wrote: | the author is trying to make money on the back of said tired | fever dream | ralph84 wrote: | > This revolution will generate enough wealth for everyone to | have what they need | | We had enough wealth for everyone to have what we need a long | time ago. No matter how much we have humans always want more. AI | won't change that. | franciscop wrote: | That's why the article goes on to explain how to fix that. I | believe they are two independent points, the taxation | proposition is independent from the AI revolution and could be | applied today. What the article argues is that the AI | revolution would make wealth accumulation so massive that we | will need laws and taxes, and new ways of looking at the world. | abraxas wrote: | I doubt that. People who are ultra rich use money as a proxy | for power, influence and status. In a post scarcity world money | likely won't be a great way to attain status so the hope is | that status will be obtained through other means like creative | expression or charisma. | stickfigure wrote: | > We had enough wealth for everyone to have what we need a long | time ago. | | That's obviously not true today: There isn't enough coronavirus | vaccine to go around. | | There almost certainly _will be_ enough eventually, but human | beings live in the now. There will be another pandemic someday. | Or some other natural disaster that creates localized or | temporal scarcity. We can 't just spin up a new lifesaving drug | or a million new homes overnight. Maybe someday we will? | Viliam1234 wrote: | > There isn't enough coronavirus vaccine to go around. | | That is mostly a question of regulations. The part that takes | so much time is getting the vaccines approved; many | researchers don't even try because they know they wouldn't | have enough money to get their vaccine approved. Also, most | governments negotiate hard to reduce the prices, despite the | fact that economic damage from lockdowns is much greater. | | https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winfried_St%C3%B6cker | fnord77 wrote: | the wealth-hoarders are interfering with this... | missedthecue wrote: | How does one hoard wealth? Am I made poorer because Bezos | owns 9% of his own company? | m___ wrote: | Yes you are, very much so, a multiplication of what you | yourself could theoretically approach in a life-time. | AlexandrB wrote: | His workers are poorer because his company's enormous | valuation comes from the surplus value they produce but do | not receive as compensation. _You_ might be poorer if you | own a small business those workers would frequent if they | had more money. | | Edit: You might also be poorer if you tried to compete with | Amazon and were crushed like a bug by their anti- | competitive practices. | imtringued wrote: | Wrong mode of thinking. The problem is that there aren't | enough alternatives. If you want an economy that is fair | for workers then you need more jobs per worker so the | worker can choose the best offer. That also means you | want more employers, including the Jeff Bezos types. | chordalkeyboard wrote: | How about his workers are richer because they receive a | portion of the value they produce, because by combining | their labor with Amazon's capital they can produce vastly | more value than without it; and if people didn't get | their share of value from producing and renting out | capital they wouldn't do it and there wouldn't be any | capital to use. | colinmhayes wrote: | Labor theory of value lmao. Amazon workers are richer | because they've been given an opportunity they otherwise | wouldn't have. If they could have a better job they'd | take it. | ben_w wrote: | Sorta. Wealth like that is control and power, and while | governments _theoretically_ have absolute power over | business, actually using those powers can break things. If | the government owned the same shares, you would have | slightly more direct control over what Amazon does in | practice. Probably. Perhaps. | forgotmypw17 wrote: | "This revolution will erode enough biome for every human to be | dependent on the industrial complex to survive, while animals | are basically left to starve." | mattnewton wrote: | What ai wil change though is the ability of large categories of | labour to win what they need on an open marketplace. I think | this initiative is trying to anticipate that. | pharmakom wrote: | yep... expectations scale with wealth. if we set a standard of | living around that of ~100 years ago there would be "enough" | for all. more likely outcome is that wealth disparity remains | about the same (or gets worse) but everyone is a bit better off | tobmlt wrote: | Human wants for things are endless. Human desire for extra | time, even more so. Human needs are subjective to each and | every human. Why does Bezos get up in the morning?, if you'd | like something aphoristic you may reply to in many creative | ways. | | There is a lot of hubris in saying we're pretty much maxed out | now, thanks and time to stop. I'd suggest instead we need to | make smart choices, and that usually smart answers are not | found at the far extremities. This "we have all we need" bit | reminds me of scientists saying physics was over in the 19th | century, combined with a bit of Thomas Malthus in such a way | that we all die unless we halt innovation. It reminds me of | that, but I'd be overstepping to put those words in your mouth. | After all human intention has endless range to match the rest. | tomgp wrote: | >Human needs are subjective to each and every human | | After a certain point that's true but I think you miss the | point of the parent. There are many, many hungry people in | the world, many people without shelter and further millions | who have no access to healthcare education or even clean | water. These are not subjective needs. | | Those people are in that position inspite of the fact that we | could, with the wealth we have, feed, house and provide | health care and education for each and every one of them. | tobmlt wrote: | Ah, thanks. I felt that was a separate point to the idea of | stopping progress because we have enough. I didn't realize | that was the main point? Yes indeed, we have enough to ease | those burdens and it's a terrible thing that they continue! | ravi-delia wrote: | I've spent what is likely way too much mental energy wondering | about this, and I'm no closer to an answer. Is there any limit | to lifestyle inflation? Is it possible to have growth that | simply outpaces what a human could possibly consume? | Intuitively it seems obvious that there should be something | like that, but in the 1800s our growth today would seem like it | should be enough. | bob33212 wrote: | Yes, There are a lot of people who make more money than they | care to spend. Some of those people give the money away. | | and also | | No, when Larry Ellison built a 200 foot yacht, a Russian | oligarch built a 250 foot yacht, The next guy will build a | 300 foot yacht, etc. | visarga wrote: | > Is it possible to have growth that simply outpaces what a | human could possibly consume? | | We're already maxed out on information, tools, media and | interactions. | wmf wrote: | I think it's a good sign that per-capita energy consumption | is decreasing in the US; there are limits to consumption. | Dylan16807 wrote: | People can't all reliably afford food and shelter, so I don't | think lifestyle inflation is the real problem. | imtringued wrote: | Overpopulation is a problem. People will claim that the | plant can support 20 billion+ people but they conveniently | forget that these people will have an incredibly low | standard of living. | | Even if we were to assume that an arbitrarily low standard | of living is acceptable, at some point that standard of | living will include mass starvation and death so there is a | real capacity limit. Being well below that limit is a | virtue. | heleninboodler wrote: | > Is there any limit to lifestyle inflation? | | If there is, it's somewhere beyond launching sports cars into | orbit. | ravi-delia wrote: | See that's exactly the thing. We can point to excess today | and say "How could that be sustainable" but it seems like | the novelty would wear off, no? Like in some hypothetical | future where resources are 1000x more available, would | people launch 1000 cars into space? It seems unlikely. | Somehow I feel like there is some inelasticity to | consumption that we just haven't reached yet. I'm not quite | sure why I feel like that though. | michael1999 wrote: | Ever watch someone burn $500 in gas running a boat for an | afternoon? | Aunche wrote: | I don't think launching sports cars into orbit is | inherently any more wasteful than say the development of | the Deep Blue chess computer. It may have been a vanity | project, but the ultimate goal was to test a proof of | concept. | heleninboodler wrote: | I didn't say it was wasteful or make any judgments about | it. It's just a fact that a level of lifestyle that | allows a person to launch his personal sports car into | space has been achieved. | Robotbeat wrote: | I would say the Dear Moon project is more of an example | than launching the car. The car was just for an initial | test flight. It took the place of a block of aluminum | like in one of the Falcon 1 launches. | Aunche wrote: | I mean I don't think that quite qualifies as lifestyle | inflation. A Roadster in Space just costs Elon $100,000 | since his business planned to launch the rocket anyways. | That's nothing compared to the price of a megayacht. | heleninboodler wrote: | Except getting a $100k car shot into space also probably | requires personally building the company that is | "launching the rocket anyways." The SpaceX waiting list | to launch junk into space for laughs is a very exclusive | club. | Dylan16807 wrote: | It's a level of lifestyle that allows a person to donate | his personal sports car to replace an inert mass, because | he'll buy another car. | | While he and many others _could_ buy personal space | launches, that launch is not a demonstration of such. He | wasn 't paying for it, and it wasn't for him. | gnramires wrote: | I've also spent mental energy on this, about 4-5 years, and | recently I've been reaching a conclusion (in a great | walkabout about AI, ethics, and the meaning of everything). | | My conclusion: individual satisfaction is bounded, as long as | we have bounded brains. First I should mention that the best | principle I've found to underlie life is that we should | maximize or optimize some kind of experience of | consciousness, for every conscious entity. It's hard to | define precisely what that entails, but we have quite good | intuition: your life should be rich in activity, in | interaction with others, in learning, in thought, in seeing, | hearing, thinking; of course, not so rich as to be | overwhelming and collapse the whole thing or leave us unable | to digest or grasp or understand (at least a part of) what | we're experiencing. I don't claim to be completely original: | Wilheim von Humboldt for me is one of the great thinkers of | conscious motivation (he lived in the 18th century). | | "I am more and more convinced that our happiness or | unhappiness depends far more on the way we meet the events of | life, than on the nature of those events themselves." -- WvH | | Being clear: what matters is not the experiences themselves, | i.e. the input/output, but what the various consciousness | apprehend. What goes on in your brain. It doesn't matter | you're at the most beautiful beach in the most beautiful | sunset behaving joyfully and peacefully if internally you're | depressed or in despair. | | "The true end of Man, or that which is prescribed by the | eternal and immutable dictates of reason, and not suggested | by vague and transient desires, is the highest and most | harmonious development of his powers to a complete and | consistent whole." -- WvH | | You can only make an individual so complete, so harmonious | with itself. Our brains have about 100 billion neurons, i.e. | a finite number, and there's only so much you can activate | those connections. Really the goal is not with any single | individual -- our goal should be with _every_ conscious | being. That 's why we should not plan individually, we should | plan as a society. A billionaire can only get so happy -- he | can keep linearly stacking jet skis and race cars and yatchs | but his happiness won't follow (linearly). We should realize | we are all part of a society, as a whole, and ideally be | completely indifferent among individuals (i.e. everyone | deserves as much happiness as we can collectively get them). | | In other words, we should take the Golden Rule _literally_. | (of course, in practice, not everyone can be responsible for | every other individual, but it should be our ultimate guiding | principle, really, as individuals and society, unmistakably): | every conscious being has the same value to yourself as | yourself. | | Because individual satisfaction is bounded, this allows | maximizing the practically unbounded (because of almost | unbounded entity numbers) satisfaction of society as a whole, | currently about 8 billion individuals. We need to move past | egoism. I don't think an egoistical civilization, as was | Western Society for much of the 20th century, can reliably go | much further than we've come (see: climate change, rising | political instability, fluctuating inequality, stagnating | quality of life). | | I'm not arguing for any political system, I'm arguing for a | cultural-social-technological outlook of the entire society. | I'd label it 'Universalism' (but that's taken), so perhaps | 'Conscious Universalism', or 'Concious value universalism'. | | That's how we move our entire civilization forward, achieve | better political stability, how we're able to tackle mega | projects like engineering the climate and rethinking our | global supply chain, how we can allocate massive resources to | space exploration, space colonization, prevention of | extinction events (like asteroid impacts, etc.), how we move | definitely past threat of nuclear annihilation (a nuclear | conflict, still not completely out of imagination, could | perhaps still collapse society). | | How to do it? I think part of it is simply enlightenment, | discussion, writing and reading; the other is indeed | recreating our institutions, including our economic and | political systems (focused around this goal). | | This century is when we decide whether we become the Borg or | the Federation. Cylon or Human. Dalek or Doctor. (or just | slowly collapse... hopefully not; we have potential) | m___ wrote: | This way of thinking, as you draw the lines into the | future, correspond to rational analysis. Could be called | quality of goal-sets, as opposite to "crowing on a pile of | dung" as is now the ongoing mindset of our elites. | ...fascinating and not depressing the observance of | reality, your way would be beyond and far of what is now | passing for science, politics, societal engineering, | technology layers without a grand design. It is not going | to happen, goes against the history of mankind pointers. | You Sir, must be one of the few, your status thus would | reside in other then wealth and ego, you posess the | suicidal gene! | joe_the_user wrote: | The question isn't lifestyle in the abstract. Everything that | people buy today is specifically intended to impel more | buying. Whether that's cars, houses or sugary foods. The | situation is incredibly different than simple "everyone gets | what they need" society. | | Take a look at just about any book on consumerism | ravi-delia wrote: | But again, it seems like there are physical limits to how | much people can consume. Like, we can agree that if | everyone had a machine that could magically summon up to 10 | thousand cubic meters of material every day, we | realistically would have universal material abundance. Even | if we exceeded what the boxes could make, one or two | dedicated to making more would result in runaway | exponential growth that would speed up much faster than | human consumption could. | | Obviously that's the extreme case, and the question is how | close to universal replicators do you need to come before | people can't want more things fast enough. | TheSpiceIsLife wrote: | Then people would create television shows demonstrating | innovative ways go waste 10,000 cubic meters of material | every day. | | I'm not convinced human stupidity is bounded. | visarga wrote: | > how close to universal replicators do you need to come | | We'll probably reach technological self-replication | singularity before AGI. I envision a small self | replicating/repairing/transforming factory that could | function based on local resources. Mostly 3d-printers, | robots and tools for making tools. | | But I think in reality there will be limited resources, | energy and pollution we can all use, so we can't have our | exponential utopia. Technology will be more like biology, | and it will get good at recycling anything. | Lichtso wrote: | There is a manga series which is set in this concept of | exponential self-replication technology gone wrong | somewhere in the past (thus a futuristic dystopia): | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blame%21 | | >> The "Netsphere", a sort of computerized control | network for The City. The City is an immense volume of | artificial structure, separated into massive "floors" by | nearly-impenetrable barriers known as "Megastructure". | The City is inhabited by scattered human and transhuman | tribes as well as hostile cyborgs known as Silicon | Creatures. The Net Terminal Genes appear to be the key to | halting the unhindered, chaotic expansion of the | Megastructure, as well as a way of stopping the murderous | robot horde known as the Safeguard from destroying all of | humanity. | loosetypes wrote: | Comment aside, I'd never seen the word impel before. | Interesting. | | For anyone curious: | https://www.grammarbook.com/blog/definitions/compel-vs- | impel... | birdsbirdsbirds wrote: | Why should there be a limit? If you can command robots to | build anything you can ever imagine, who doesn't want his own | Versailles - with impressive towers like the Burj Khalifa? | Who doesn't want to fly their jet or space rocket just for | fun to the moon and back? | | And humans will be humans. There will be new games, like | drone wars on distant planets, where any production capacity | and energy will be used. And since everything is very | efficient, there will be no food left for birds or even poor | humans. | mlac wrote: | I don't. There is the consideration that more money comes | with more problems. You can say that more money would fix | those problems, but at the end of the day, you still had to | spend energy thinking about it. | | You can quickly approach a situation where time is the | limiting factor. In this case I think that the private jet | or extremely fast transportation allows you to get some | time back. Beyond that you might have one or two projects | that you really enjoy, like a palace, but you don't really | have enough time to handle much more. Elon is a good | example: he's got a few projects that he really cares about | and does them at an extreme scale. He effectively has | unlimited resources but he would not make any progress on | his three major initiatives if he was much more fragmented | than he is. | | And if you run this to the extreme, the true cost of | overconsumption creates the problem of environmental damage | and negative externalities on others that can wind you up | like Marie-Antoinette. | | Plenty of other people are happy with minimalism. And that | can be hard for some folks to understand if they aren't | minimalists. | rocmcd wrote: | If you haven't already, I'd recommend reading up on | dematerialization: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dematerialization_(economics) | | Modern, first-world society does seem to be reaching some | sort of inflection point that might point to a "top" (of | physical consumption at least) as we get more efficient and | more stuff is moving digital. That's not to say there is | really anything conclusive, but it is interesting to think | about. | bawolff wrote: | There's certainly people who eschew technology and live in a | historical fashion. They might even be happier for it. | | If there is a natural (not physical out of resources) limit | where humans feel satiated i doubt we're anywhere near it. If | we do hit it, wait a bunch of generations and they'll be more | humans. | ravi-delia wrote: | With exponential growth, we might be closer than you'd | think. Clearly people always want more, but the rate at | which we want more seems like it has to have to have a | limit. At the very least, it can grow faster than the | population can (almost automatically, since more people | increase growth as well). | DenisM wrote: | Status is a big deal. A wealth differential allows one to | order other people around, building up status. Those others | then feel the need to get out from under the yoke, or at | least to be in the position to order around other-other | people. All of this requires continuous wealth accumulation | to which there is no limit. You would have to redefine status | to end this game. | sudosysgen wrote: | _" A house may be large or small; as long as the | neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all | social requirement for a residence. But let there arise | next to the little house a palace, and the little house | shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that | its inmate has no social position at all to maintain."_ | est31 wrote: | Also note that a situation where humanity's productivity is | expanding is way better from a social standpoint than one | where it is stagnant. The first allows positive sum games | to exist. The second is a zero sum game. Of course there is | a limit to growth as the reachable universe is finite. | sudosysgen wrote: | If the goal of wealth accumulation is not actually to be | better off but to be better than your neighbour (as it | is), then positive sum games _become zero sum games | functionally_. | | So no, that's not really a solution either. | | But even then, the goal isn't to limit human | productivity, is it? It's to limit how much we work and | lifestyle inflation, which doesn't require growth to go | to zero. | ctoth wrote: | Read some Culture novels. | ravi-delia wrote: | Oh man, I'd love to but there aren't any more. Fantastic | concept, solid execution. | ksdale wrote: | The GDP per capita of the world is only about $12,000. That's | technically "what we need," food, clothes, and shelter for a | family of 4, but on a per person basis, it's below the federal | poverty line in the US. | | I don't think it's correct to say that we had enough wealth a | long time ago. There are a lot of places in the world that are | still desperately poor by any measure, not just by the | standards of the wealthy. And although it's undoubtedly true | that the wealthiest few deciles could give up many luxuries to | provide more for the poor, it's much more arguable if there is | enough for everyone to have _enough_ without generating much | more. | randyrand wrote: | I've been watching videos about tribes in Papa New Guniea and | it makes you realize you don't need very much for clothes or | shelter. | | Food is all you really need. For luxury: food, sex, and | purpose. The tribes have all 3. | fastball wrote: | You should probably move out there then. | dudeman13 wrote: | _Need_ | | _Want_ | fastball wrote: | GC claimed that food is all that is _needed_ , and that | their wants were satisfied by the additional of the other | two things. | | The fact is that the average human is _not_ actually | content to be one notch above _animal_ with "food, sex, | and purpose". That is why we have progressed much further | than just accepting those basics as all we need. But I | think our improvements on those things do provide enough | value for the average person to be happy. | | - _Tasty_ food | | - _Safe_ sex (and relative ease of reproduction) | | - _Multi-variate_ / chosen purpose. | | Plus other methods to remove annoying friction from your | life: | | - Optimized shelter | | - Optimized travel | | - Consumption of various raw goods (not for food and not | for shelter). e.g. 3D Printers! | kbutler wrote: | GDP per capita of $12,000 implies family of 4 is $48,000, | because "per capita" is per person in that family. | legulere wrote: | GDP per capita also counts children. $48,000 for a family of | four sounds perfectly fine to me. | qeternity wrote: | These arguments always ignore the fact that the only reason | $X GDP is generated is because people are incentivized. | Children don't produce, so someone else is producing for | them. If you tell people they will get $12k no matter how | hard they work, they won't work. We've tried socialism. | maxsilver wrote: | > If you tell people they will get $12k no matter how | hard they work, they won't work. | | This is obviously not true, since in every capitalist | society, the hardest working people already make the | least amount of money, and the laziest people employed | already get given the most amount of money. | | Capitalism has already proven that financial incentive | has no correlation to how hard someone works. | qeternity wrote: | What?? It's the exact opposite. Those people HAVE to work | that hard precisely for the reason I mentioned: they | won't be paid otherwise. This is precisely the issue. If | you paid people irrespective of how much they work, they | won't work. | | Your example is evidence of my statement, not refutation. | victor106 wrote: | Came here to say the same thing. | | People _might_ still be more unhappy even though society at | large delivers them things that could be unimaginable today. | The creators and owners who can deliver that future will be | richer than everyone else (rightfully so, imo) and that divide | is what I think could make people more unhappy although they | will be much better off than what we are today. | m___ wrote: | To the author: | | Stick to pealing the layer on top of what you see in your daily, | AI, for now the only output being some analysis and synthesis for | some data that has meaning, and is in the hands of a few, for the | few. SQL for human data mongers. | | The data in the public domain are one of many, botched, out of | focus, wrong datasets, lack of context, a mix of right context, | too limited scope to data... as is your own admitted supposition, | of what you see is not what you suggest it would mean. Garbage in | garbage out, a DdOS on AI is the big one to solve for now? | | Add some inevitable layers, individual psychology, societal | collective psychology, surplus population and their going rate of | psychological settings, the list of variables "known" is endless, | even more so are there hiding some very well known "unknowns". | | Some serious contenders of raw AI are bluntly omitted, the size | of the global population versus the index of resources of the | iron-ore ball as is the planet. Relying on "money", a sublimated | layer, to account for anything but a tool for social engineering, | as is your outright omission to define at all AI, it's reliance | on the most infinitesimal part of the few (humans), the outright | wrong definition of wealth in it's relativity and dynamics, the | USA as a definite part of the planet, derivatives of all and | everything, i really do not know where to stop to end the rant. | | As a remark to your artisan ready for consumption product page, | ...it is not very data searches friendly, it has a very limited | scope, it is suggestive of different proven fallacies, and has no | definite declared vocabulary. | | Are you to blame, of course not, as you suggest yourself AI and | not "universal" human genie, as in disproportion of memory and | processing capacity is to blame. As long as energy is infinite at | the level of AI, the processing versus energy economy of the | human brain, as is that even more energy efficient processing | brain of say a raven, is largely overpowered in meaning as to the | absolute (till now, not necessarily tomorrow), and the nano- | technologies and biology of genetics), inferior scalability of | human minds. | | When crudely put, nano-technology, the biology of genetics | (Corona probably), are serious contenders readily to cooperate. | Again the case for lack of scope and context of the tease of your | blog page. | | Publish or perish well assumed, you Sir are desperately clinging | to the flimsy single rope, trying not to drown. Jouralists and | media, politics build a living on this, it is called a narrative. | I am very convinced that you could come up with such, say every | week or two. | vincentmarle wrote: | Great, after the great VC pandemic expert reinvention of last | year, they've now found a new victim: capitalism. Really wish | these VC types would just stick to what they do best: pump money | into overpriced startups. | aksss wrote: | > "Moore's Law for everything" should be the rallying cry of a | generation whose members can't afford what they want." | | Ugh. Moore's law doesn't apply to everything, and in fact doesn't | apply to most things, and wishing it did won't change that. | | I think Vaclav Smil did an effective diagnosis of this at the | Driva Climate Investment Meeting: | https://youtu.be/gkj_91IJVBk?t=1132 | adambaybutt wrote: | Altman isn't arguing that Moore's Law DOES apply to everything | but rather than we should work toward such a world. | | It is good for society if the costs of goods and services | decrease over time to allow a given income/wealth level to live | a better life over time. | toomuchtodo wrote: | I'm all for driving down the costs of things low on Maslow's | hierarchy, but it's arguably more reasonable in the short | term to put effective public policy in place than hope the | singularity gets here (an exaggeration, but not exceptionally | so, considering "Moore's Law for Everything"). | | Tech people keep trying to fix people problems with tech. | ~47k people die each year in the US from a lack of | healthcare. Other countries don't need Moore's Law to fix | this, for example [1] [2]. Conversely, it's fine that Elon | runs around as Technoking as long as the batteries are pumped | out of Gigafactories at full speed. Technology fixes for | technology problems, people fixes for people problems. We | don't need more wealth ("The future is already here -- it's | just not very evenly distributed" -- Gibson). America is one | of the wealthiest country in the world. We need quality of | life floors and more equitable distributions of what passes | for and enables wealth. | | With all of that rant said, I really love Sam's idea about | the American Equity Fund [3]. It's long overdue, and | something that the Federal Reserve could administer today | with FedAccounts as the target of distributions from taxes on | productive concerns. Sam's a smart person, and I hope he can | sell the idea with a pitch deck to those who need to be sold | on it. The issue of equity (social and economic) has reached | a crescendo, and it would do a disservice to county and | citizens alike to let the opportunity go to waste. | | [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=healthcare+outcomes+by+co | unt... | | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_univ | ers... | | [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24908042 | ctoth wrote: | Could it be that tech people try to fix problems with tech | because tech people are familiar with tech? Said another | way, where are the non-tech public policy people solving | these problems? If they don't step up, maybe it's time the | tech people do? | adambaybutt wrote: | Exactly. Sam isn't a politician or policymaker. He is | trying to contribute ideas for others to improve and | implement. | toomuchtodo wrote: | I would encourage him at trying his hand at being one. | It's not a long journey from the ideas in his post to | legislation. | toomuchtodo wrote: | Absolutely. This is not condemning technologists, but | encouraging a reassessment of effective strategies for | implementation to lead to the desired outcome. | | Policy is written by the elected. Speak to or assume | those roles. Provide covering fire for effective | contributors who can execute on your mission and vision, | just like a startup. | adambaybutt wrote: | Technology has reduced costs of goods and services by | orders of magnitude more than any public policy. | | But yes I do agree iterating to improve public policy is | important too. | | Hence the organization of Sam's essay to reflect this. | [deleted] | aksss wrote: | If wishes were fishes, nobody would go hungry. | [deleted] | cbau wrote: | Sold on the premise that when AI gets here it will change | everything. What I don't have a good grasp on is how fast it will | come. Recent feats of AI are very impressive, but it's hard for | me to put it on a trendline that would line it up with massive | changes coming with 10 years. Predictions around AI have made | similar claims for the last 50 years. Why is it different this | time? | matthalvorson wrote: | I'd recommend the book Life 3.0, the author surveys a large | number of AI researchers to answer this timing question (I | think 95% said AGI is guaranteed in the next 50 years iirc), | and also discusses why this time is different than the times in | the past, like in the 60's when a group of researchers thought | they would make significant progress towards AGI over the | course of a summer | jfk13 wrote: | I suspect that if someone asked the same questions a decade | ago, or two, they'd have gotten similar explanations of why | "this time is different". | | AGI within the next 50 years? I don't think we have any idea, | really. We don't even know what "intelligence" means. | A12-B wrote: | I try to keep up with the industry, just to see where it's | going. From what I can tell, AI (in the general sense) is so | flexible it can be applied to just about anything with | observable data points, which is basically everything. Are | these applications useful? I think right now they are | impactful, not necessarily useful. EG: we can already copy | someone's voice perfectly with just a small amount of audio | using AI. But in practise, not much has come from this | incredibly remarkable feat. | | So what does AI need to get to the next level? Not much but | time to mature, all the tools are already there. | chrislloyd wrote: | If anybody is interested in reading more about Henry George and a | land-value tax, Radical Markets[1] has an in-depth chapter on it. | | [1]: http://radicalmarkets.com | cbau wrote: | Sell us on it! | magwa101 wrote: | For the vast majority of the world: food, shelter, health and | comfort are driven by energy. Cheap/abundant energy will lift | everyone. AI can help us in that process and then will have | broader global benefits in 50 years. Not because it won't be | ready, but because we won't be ready. | savant_penguin wrote: | "Even more power will shift from labor to capital." | | You can say the same thing for machines replacing workers at | farms, but hardly anyone would rather ban tractors for taking | people's jobs | | You can say the exact same thing for bank tellers replaced by | ATM's but no one wants to wait in long lines to withdraw money | and pay expensive service fees | | The list goes on and on | | Google maps (how often people need physical maps anymore?) | | Gmail (goodbye to a lot of physical mailing service) | | Excel (1 accountant can do the work of tens of more accountants | of the past) | | Forklifts take away many body breaking jobs | | Jobs do disappear, but very few people would rather go back | bambax wrote: | > _My work at OpenAI..._ | | OpenAI isn't open, so why did you continue to call it that? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-03-16 23:00 UTC)