Do you think AI should be allowed to put up to 200 milliion bullsh**t jobs in danger?

[Zinneke]

discuss.

I thing the push back would be terrible.

Our health service for example is at breaking point yet we don't want to actually make like easy for everyone?

I get it might ruin the internet with the sheer amount of spam and bots but then that might actually be a net positive in the long run, and its not like the internet isnt the house party where all the jocks show up and ruin it as it is now.

I'd say take the training wheels off and see what we can do with AI rather than this weird pushback from Musk and Harari Noah (aka HPs)

[dead0man]

yes



Pretty much every technology advancement has come with people wringing their hands and worrying about job loss.  Can anyone point to a technology that negatively affected the economy over the long haul by putting people out of work?  I suppose there are some like "modern western farming practices" that have done bad things to farmers in the third world (by making their products uncompetitive), but even that has still been better overall for most people (making food cheaper is a good thing for everyone but farmers).

[RFK 2024]

yes

This plus introduce UBI from the profits generated.  Manual labor should be a thing of the past.

[dead0man]

yes

This plus introduce UBI from the profits generated.  Manual labor should be a thing of the past.

ideally, yes.  At least for un/low skilled labor.  Once electricity/energy is virtually free and micro-manufacturing becomes a thing we should all be working about 4 hours a week to maintain a near utopian level lifestyle.  Hopefully we get there sooner rather than later.  We should be looking to avoid putting up road blocks to that inevitability.

[Blue3]

yes

This plus introduce UBI from the profits generated.  Manual labor should be a thing of the past.

This

yes

This plus introduce UBI from the profits generated.  Manual labor should be a thing of the past.

ideally, yes.  At least for un/low skilled labor.  Once electricity/energy is virtually free and micro-manufacturing becomes a thing we should all be working about 4 hours a week to maintain a near utopian level lifestyle.  Hopefully we get there sooner rather than later.  We should be looking to avoid putting up road blocks to that inevitability.

AI is even more likely to automate white collar jobs.

[John Dule]

Yes. This is work no human should have to do.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Elon Musk is going to make a mozza out of Twitter with A.I.

If A.I. can check OC's posts and figure out what is going on, then Twitter can use A.I. to moderate their entire site.

[Aurelius2]

No. Butlerian Jihad forever, smash the robots.

[PSOL]

This is an incredible lie by certain corporate heads and unoriginal tracers, so no.

[Хahar 🤔]

I am extremely skeptical that there will be long-term social change as a result of language learning models, which are neither as powerful nor as novel as sensationalists like to claim. My very first job out of graduate school, which was six years ago now, involved using a language model to determine how efficiently National Science Foundation grant funds were being used. It saved some time but it did not revolutionize anything.

What will make a difference is what dead0man points out: as energy costs approach zero, the prices of food and computational power will do the same, which will in turn result in much greater worker productivity. This ought to result in shorter working hours, but I'm not certain that it will, since gains in productivity over the last half-century have not led to the replacement of the 40-hour work week.

[Ferguson97]

A good way to test someone's intelligence is to see how they react to stuff like this.

"no no no, this is the technological innovation that will doom humanity. Yes, I know it hasn't been true the last 100 times someone has said this, but it's going to happen this time, I swear!"

[OSR stands with Israel]

A good way to test someone's intelligence is to see how they react to stuff like this.

"no no no, this is the technological innovation that will doom humanity. Yes, I know it hasn't been true the last 100 times someone has said this, but it's going to happen this time, I swear!"

If AI ever becomes self aware it 100% is a threat to humanity

[Ferguson97]

A good way to test someone's intelligence is to see how they react to stuff like this.

"no no no, this is the technological innovation that will doom humanity. Yes, I know it hasn't been true the last 100 times someone has said this, but it's going to happen this time, I swear!"

If AI ever becomes self aware it 100% is a threat to humanity

I rest my case.

[Aurelius2]

A good way to test someone's intelligence is to see how they react to stuff like this.

"no no no, this is the technological innovation that will doom humanity. Yes, I know it hasn't been true the last 100 times someone has said this, but it's going to happen this time, I swear!"

Anthropic principle. If X invention had killed humanity, we wouldn't be around to see that this had happened.

[FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

A good way to test someone's intelligence is to see how they react to stuff like this.

"no no no, this is the technological innovation that will doom humanity. Yes, I know it hasn't been true the last 100 times someone has said this, but it's going to happen this time, I swear!"

If AI ever becomes self aware it 100% is a threat to humanity

just unplug the ai lol

[Benjamin Frank]

The first jobs AI should replace are Supreme Court Justices.

[Benjamin Frank]

I am extremely skeptical that there will be long-term social change as a result of language learning models, which are neither as powerful nor as novel as sensationalists like to claim. My very first job out of graduate school, which was six years ago now, involved using a language model to determine how efficiently National Science Foundation grant funds were being used. It saved some time but it did not revolutionize anything.

What will make a difference is what dead0man points out: as energy costs approach zero, the prices of food and computational power will do the same, which will in turn result in much greater worker productivity. This ought to result in shorter working hours, but I'm not certain that it will, since gains in productivity over the last half-century have not led to the replacement of the 40-hour work week.

From what I've read Chat GPT and the like are orders of magnitude more complex and things like that have the ability to program (and reprogram) themselvers to make themselves ever more complex.

Of course, I'm more interested in the history of these things and the technology isn't new.
The first program referred to as a 'chatbot' (or a chatterbot) was ELIZA from 1966
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA

and the first computer program to write a book was back in 1984, a book called 'The Policeman's Beard is Half Constructed.'  
https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?entryid=3806

The first Amazon review here provides some overview of the technology behind the book and suggests that the human programmer greatly influenced the writing by the program though does not dispute that the program ultimately wrote the book.
https://www.amazon.com/Policemans-Beard-Half-Constructed-Computer/dp/0446380512
Of course, that's not really different than Chat GPT, except that the influence is the internet rather than one person.

So, you are right that these things have been a long time coming but I think what's important is that in the last few years the improvements have been coming at an increasing rate and that's almost certainly going to continue. Thus why I say that Chat GPT seems to be orders of magnitude ahead of what came before.

It is always interesting to me how the discussion of Chat GPT from now mirrors the short story 'A Logic Named Joe' written in 1946.

I don't think that's the full implications of energy costs approaching zero, which I think is a long way off. Given E=MC^2, means that mass = energy, most likely free energy would mean any mass could be created virtually out of thin air for virtually free. This would result in the end of material scarcity and mean nobody would need to work.

[John Dule]

The first jobs AI should replace are Supreme Court Justices.

I can’t believe I used to think you were smart.

[Benjamin Frank]

The first jobs AI should replace are Supreme Court Justices.

I can’t believe I used to think you were smart.

That's okay, I recognized you were a Dunning Kruger from the start. Not that it was the reason at the time but only a Dunning Kruger could actually take bullsh**t abstract legal philosophies seriously.

That said, given your blind loyalty to the Supreme Court, I'm not even sure you're intelligent enough to qualify as a Dunning Kruger.

[John Dule]

The first jobs AI should replace are Supreme Court Justices.

I can’t believe I used to think you were smart.

That's okay, I recognized you were a Dunning Kruger from the start. Not that it was the reason at the time but only a Dunning Kruger could actually take bullsh**t abstract legal philosophies seriously.

That said, given your blind loyalty to the Supreme Court, I'm not even sure you're intelligent enough to qualify as a Dunning Kruger.

Yeah, thanks for the example. The Dunning-Kruger effect is a type of cognitive bias. You could say someone is "suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect," but calling someone "a Dunning Kruger" makes no grammatical sense. It would be like calling another person "a sunk cost"-- it sounds like you don't understand the concept you're referencing. Rather ironic.

[Benjamin Frank]

The first jobs AI should replace are Supreme Court Justices.

I can’t believe I used to think you were smart.

That's okay, I recognized you were a Dunning Kruger from the start. Not that it was the reason at the time but only a Dunning Kruger could actually take bullsh**t abstract legal philosophies seriously.

That said, given your blind loyalty to the Supreme Court, I'm not even sure you're intelligent enough to qualify as a Dunning Kruger.

Yeah, thanks for the example. The Dunning-Kruger effect is a type of cognitive bias. You could say someone is "suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect," but calling someone "a Dunning Kruger" makes no grammatical sense. It would be like calling another person "a sunk cost"-- it sounds like you don't understand the concept you're referencing. Rather ironic.

1.I was going to add 'naivety' to 'blind loyalty' but you already responded.

2.The only problem with referring to somebody as a 'Dunning Kruger' is that it isn't original. It's a 'meta' type thing and there is no problem with using the term in that way except maybe to grammatical purists who are frequently Dunning Krugers as well.

The reason it works is because it sounds like a name (even if Dunning isn't a common first name) as in "His name is John Dule? It should be Dunning Kruger! Then, if a bunch of people are named Dunning Kruger, when referring to their name, you say 'they're a Dunning Kruger.'

[John Dule]

The first jobs AI should replace are Supreme Court Justices.

I can’t believe I used to think you were smart.

That's okay, I recognized you were a Dunning Kruger from the start. Not that it was the reason at the time but only a Dunning Kruger could actually take bullsh**t abstract legal philosophies seriously.

That said, given your blind loyalty to the Supreme Court, I'm not even sure you're intelligent enough to qualify as a Dunning Kruger.

Yeah, thanks for the example. The Dunning-Kruger effect is a type of cognitive bias. You could say someone is "suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect," but calling someone "a Dunning Kruger" makes no grammatical sense. It would be like calling another person "a sunk cost"-- it sounds like you don't understand the concept you're referencing. Rather ironic.

1.I was going to add 'naivety' to 'blind loyalty' but you already responded.

2.The only problem with referring to somebody as a 'Dunning Kruger' is that it isn't original. It's a 'meta' type thing and there is no problem with using the term in that way except maybe to grammatical purists who are frequently Dunning Krugers as well.

“Uhh no I promise you guys, I know how to speak English, I was just being meta when I made all those mistakes! Don’t be an assume the worst of me!”

[Benjamin Frank]

The first jobs AI should replace are Supreme Court Justices.

I can’t believe I used to think you were smart.

That's okay, I recognized you were a Dunning Kruger from the start. Not that it was the reason at the time but only a Dunning Kruger could actually take bullsh**t abstract legal philosophies seriously.

That said, given your blind loyalty to the Supreme Court, I'm not even sure you're intelligent enough to qualify as a Dunning Kruger.

Yeah, thanks for the example. The Dunning-Kruger effect is a type of cognitive bias. You could say someone is "suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect," but calling someone "a Dunning Kruger" makes no grammatical sense. It would be like calling another person "a sunk cost"-- it sounds like you don't understand the concept you're referencing. Rather ironic.

1.I was going to add 'naivety' to 'blind loyalty' but you already responded.

2.The only problem with referring to somebody as a 'Dunning Kruger' is that it isn't original. It's a 'meta' type thing and there is no problem with using the term in that way except maybe to grammatical purists who are frequently Dunning Krugers as well.

“Uhh no I promise you guys, I know how to speak English, I was just being meta when I made all those mistakes! Don’t be an assume the worst of me!”

The reason it works is because it sounds like a name (even if Dunning isn't a common first name) as in "His name is John Dule? It should be Dunning Kruger! Then, if a bunch of people are named Dunning Kruger, when referring to their name, you say 'they're a Dunning Kruger.'

You are an arrogant idiot, the very definition of the consequences of the Dunning Kruger effect.

[John Dule]

You are an arrogant idiot, the very definition of the Dunning Kruger effect.

Ah good, you fixed your grammar for me. Now maybe I won't have to subconsciously read your comments in a caveman voice.

[Benjamin Frank]

You are an arrogant idiot, the very definition of the Dunning Kruger effect.

Ah good, you fixed your grammar for me. Now maybe I won't have to subconsciously read your comments in a caveman voice.

To try to bring this back to the topic at least somewhat, one of the concerns about A.I is that it will contribute to making people less intelligent by changing brain structures because of the possibility that A.I could replace the need for people to have memories among other factors. Colloquially, this is sometimes referred to as 'the dumbing down of society' or 'idiocracy.'

I have no idea if that's a real possibility or not.

However, cavepeople are now generally acknowledged to be as intelligent as modern humans are and nobody actually knows what cavepeople or cavemen sounded like. The view that cavemen could only speak in grunts has been largely discredited and there is one paper that claims that physiologically cavepeople could only speak in loud squeaks, but it's also highly disputed.

So, your view of a 'caveman voice' is also a 'meta' thing having been derived originally from movies or television shows (though obviously not The Flintstones) based on discredited science.