My impression is that China has a pretty high standard of living. They have been extremely successful in reducing poverty over the last few decades. You should see how shiny even some of the third tier cities are.
Well put. Indeed non-free market solutions typically rely on some impossible conditions, in your comparison that would be "just don't get sick". But people will get sick. You can't just "not have a fever at all".
> "just don't get sick". But people will get sick. You can't just "not have a fever at all".
PPE, quarantining and other containment measures exist to broadly prevent sickness, but I imagine not in a universe that is about the free market at all costs, to strain the allegory further. If people keep getting sick with a recognizable pattern, someone ought to look into that, and prevent future outbreaks.
> PPE, quarantining and other containment measures exist to broadly prevent sickness
But people won't wear PPE and quarantine and do other containment measures (and not because of free market). Also PPE, quarantining and other containment measures are not perfect and probably will never be. So yeah, again naive, idealistic view that perfectly fits naive anti-free market narratives that require impossible conditions to work.
There's no way of knowing this - I see articles fairly often on HN of mathematicians (sometimes grad students or younger) solving problems where progress previously had stalled.
What I meant was not that these problems wouldn't get solved for decades, but that few years ago (before advent of LLMs) if you've asked average researcher how far away are we from AI solving unsolved math problems, the median answer would be that we are far, far away from that.
If that's how your comment was meant, it seems an odd reply to the parent comment, which is firmly critical of AI's impact on society, not really debating about the progress of the technology.
Sure, but 1) they're clearly being quite facetious with the above, and 2) it is also pretty clearly contextualised by the rest of what they said, which is making an equally sarcastic comment about how much AI is costing society.
The overall template is "look at how much we're giving away, but hey guess it's worth it for <insert stupid reasons here>".
Instead of immediately listing off whatever instance AI has shown some value in isolation, it might be worth considering its net effect on society as a whole. IMO that picture is not so rosy.
You don't need AGI. If AI progress stopped right now, LLMs would still be amazing and extremely useful technology. It already makes life for many much easier. But it's easy to miss it when you are entombed in anti-AI bubble. But I've got something that may placate your fears - remember that horses did not vote.
> You don't need AGI. If AI progress stopped right now, LLMs would still be amazing and extremely useful technology. It already makes life for many much easier.
No? I don’t? Because that’s the bright future they’re trying to sell, after they kick you out on the street.
> But I've got something that may placate your fears - remember that horses did not vote.
Neither did serfs. And that’s what they’re trying to establish. Also, very generous of you to believe that anyone outside of the tech bubble, or hell that majority INSIDE of the tech bubble, will lift a finger to defend the tech workers. Just look at how controversial a simple topic like work union is. It’s dog eat dog out there, and tech feudal lords know that they can just buy the most vocal ones.
Should I take this as you volunteering your livelihood? Otherwise this comment rings incredibly hollow. It's very easy to say others should sacrifice what they've worked their whole life for, but it's not so easy to give it up yourself. If you truly believe it's worth it, though, you should be eager to do so.
> Should I take this as you volunteering your livelihood? Otherwise this comment rings incredibly hollow. It's very easy to say others should sacrifice what they've worked their whole life for, but it's not so easy to give it up yourself. If you truly believe it's worth it, though, you should be eager to do so.
Well yes, I'm not immune to potential displacement, I don't know where did you get it that I'm somehow in safe spot that will never get replaced with AI. And I'm ok with this risk.
People losing jobs is price we pay for progress, not goal in itself. I'm really surprised I have to point it out. Hence me quitting my job will have zero positive impact. Programmers for years have automated other jobs and suddenly when their work is in danger somehow automation becomes bad.
It would speed up the "progress" you so desire. But that's about what I'd expect. Turns out people aren't willing to back up what they promote when it negatively affects them, despite all the talk. Maybe trying to sacrifice the lives of millions of people so you can have a fancier chatbot isn't actually a good idea. Next time you suggest destroying society, try it out on yourself first and see if it's really worth it.
I don't think so. I believe that there will be some kind of breaking point and young people will just refuse to provide luxurious space communism for pensioners.
What are you talking about? Minimum wage has nowadays a lot wider coverage and many unions have absurd privileges and compensations (e.g. docking unions) for which entire society has to pay. Even recently NYC hotel keepers have managed to negotiate 6 figure salary. There's lots of doomerism that doesn't really hold up when confronted with actual evidence lately.
> We are colletively at a breaking point as a society where people legitimately can't afford to exist in a society
Aren't poverty rates being reduced basically everywhere and people getting richer across all deciles? The truth is that even if 90% tax rate was enforceable it would not change much - many problems plaguing societies right now are due to bad legislation and NIMBYs, with housing being the prime example. Somehow people want at same time: more houses, cheaper housing and as little new housing development as possible.
reply