←back to thread

341 points throw0101c | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
oytis ◴[] No.44609364[source]
I just hope when (if) the hype is over, we can repurpose the capacities for something useful (e.g. drug discovery etc.)
replies(16): >>44609452 #>>44609461 #>>44609463 #>>44609471 #>>44609489 #>>44609580 #>>44609632 #>>44609635 #>>44609712 #>>44609785 #>>44609958 #>>44609979 #>>44610227 #>>44610522 #>>44610554 #>>44610755 #
baxtr ◴[] No.44609785[source]
Re hype: Why is it that so many people are completely obsessed with replacing all developers and any other white-collar job? They seem to be totally convinced that this will happen. 100%

To me, this all sounds like an “end-of-the-world” nihilistic wet dream, and I don’t buy the hype.

Is it’s just me?

replies(18): >>44609829 #>>44609831 #>>44609835 #>>44609847 #>>44609848 #>>44609859 #>>44609865 #>>44609872 #>>44609891 #>>44609930 #>>44609963 #>>44610002 #>>44610117 #>>44610206 #>>44610410 #>>44610656 #>>44611004 #>>44612310 #
overgard ◴[] No.44609930[source]
I find it weird and uncomfortable too. Like, why are there a bunch of people excited about mass unemployment?
replies(3): >>44609970 #>>44609998 #>>44610168 #
Ekaros ◴[] No.44609970[source]
It is not about mass unemployment. It is about efficiency. Producing the same thing for cheaper. Leading to cheaper products to buy.

That is what allowed our current lifestyles. It is good thing. Now it is just coming to next area.

replies(3): >>44610026 #>>44610322 #>>44610383 #
overgard ◴[] No.44610383[source]
Ok, but who benefits from these efficiencies? Hint: not the people losing their jobs. The main people that stand to benefit from this don't even need to work.

Producing things cheaper sounds great, but just because its produced cheaper doesn't mean it is cheaper for people to buy.

And it doesn't matter if things are cheap if a massive number of people don't have incomes at all (or even a reasonable way to find an income - what exactly are white collar professionals supposed to do when their profession is automated away, if all the other professions are also being automated away?)

Sidenote btw, but I do think it's funny that the investor class doesn't think AI will come for their role..

To me the silver lining is that I don't think most of this comes to pass, because I don't think current approaches to AGI are good enough. But it sure shows some massive structural issues we will eventually face

replies(1): >>44613133 #
1. chii ◴[] No.44613133[source]
> I do think it's funny that the investor class doesn't think AI will come for their role..

investors don't perform work (labour); they take capital risk. An ai do not own capital, and thus cannot "take" that role.

If you're asking about the role of a manager of investment, that's not an investor - that's just a worker, which can and would be automated eventually. Robo-advisors are already quite common. The owner of capital can use AI to "think" for them in choosing what capital risk to take.

And as for massive number of people who don't have income - i dont think that will come to pass either (just as you dont think AGI will come to pass). Mostly because the speed of these automation will decline as it's not that trivial to do so - the low hanging fruits would've been picked asap, and the difficult ones left will take ages to automate.