This has been a line of argument from every Luddite since the start of the industrial revolution. But it is not true. Almost all the productivity gains of the last 250 years have been dispersed into the population. A few early movers have managed to capture some fraction of the value created by new technology, the vast majority has gone to improve people's quality of life, which is why we live longer and richer lives than any generation before us. Some will lose their jobs and that is fine because human demand for goods and services is infinite, there will always be jobs to do.
I really doubt that AI will somehow be our successors. Machines and AI need microprocessors so complex that it took us 70 years of exponential growth and multiple trillion-dollar tech companies to train even these frankly quite unimpressive models. These AI are entirely dependent on our globalized value chains with capital costs so high that there are multiple points of failure.
A human needs just food, clean water, a warm environment and some books to carry civilization forward.
There is a significant contingent of influential people that disagree. "Why the future doesn't need us" (https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/), Ray Kurzweil etc.
This is qualitatively different than what the Luddites faced, it concerns all of us and touches the essence of what makes us human. This isn't the kind of technology that has the potential to make our lives better in the long run, it will almost surely be used for more harm than good. Not only are these models trained on the collectively created output of humanity, the key application areas are to subjugate, control and manipulate us. I agree with you that this will not happen immediately, because of the very real complexities of physical manufacturing, but if this part of the process isn't stopped in its tracks, the resulting progress is unlikely to be curtailed. I at least fundamentally think that the use of all of our data and output to train these models is unethical, especially if the output is not freely shared and made available.
It seems we are running out of ways to reinvent ourselves as machines and automation replace us. At some point, perhaps approaching, the stated goal of improving quality of life and reduce human suffering ring false. What is human being if we have nothing to do? Where are the vast majority of people supposed to find meaning?
I don't see why machines automatically producing art takes away the meaning of making art. There's already a million people much better at art than you or I will ever be producing it for free online. Now computers can do it too. Is that supposed to take away my desire to make art?
I've been lucky enough to build and make things and work in jobs where I can see the product of my work - real, tangible, creative, and extremely satisfying. I can only do this work as long people want and need the work to be done.
Now we are in Ship of Theseus territory. If I downsample an image and convert it into a tiny delta in the model weights, from which the original image can never be recovered, is that infringement?
These AI models are closer to Google in that regard, yes, you can instruct them to generate a Mickey Mouse image, but you can instruct them to generate any kind of image, just like you can search for anything on Google, including Mickey Mouse. When using these models you are essentially performing a search in the model weights.
Facebook is a walled garden, but Twitter is indexable and searchable. It has become a megaphone for celebrities, companies, individuals, and institutions.
Before the musk acquisition you could not use it without being logging in. I heard that changed slightly but haven’t checked. But that sounds like a walled garden…
Potatoes are a brilliant food. They're filling, contain an appropriate amount of calories, a lot of nutrients and a lot of potassium which helps balance out all that salt we're eating.
Nicotine is associated with considerable adverse effects on cardiovascular health. Caffeine has not been found to have any long-term effects on cardiovascular health.
Not true. There are studies from Sweden where we've got "snus". It's been quite clear for a long time now that that the problem is inhaling smoke from a fire. Which makes a lot of sense when you think about it for a second. Which is why legalizing pot smoking is idiotic, while vaping, cookies, or whatever is a different beast.
This is wrong. I don't think you searched, but if you did you probably didn't go very far. What you came up (I'm assuming you did search instead of just parroting what everyone else says) from your search is the result of decades or propaganda to demonize tobacco, and nicotine was simply a practical scape goat to go along with it -- well, for a good demonizing marketing campaign to work I guess you need to manufacture or choose an enemy that is easy to spot.
I'm pretty sure there's no double blind, placebo controlled trial contrasting nicotine with cardiovascular health. Simply because for any adverse health effects to come up, it would need to be taken for a very long time, and no one would run such a study. As for tobacco, well, obviously. But it's not really controlled for nicotine, is it?
> I'm pretty sure there's no double blind, placebo controlled trial contrasting nicotine with cardiovascular health. Simply because for any adverse health effects to come up, it would need to be taken for a very long time, and no one would run such a study.
Sure, but the conclusion "therefore we can't know" is invalid. This is what we have observational studies and animal models for. You can absolutely do this in, say, rhesus monkeys and draw some reasonable conclusions if the trial results match up with observational results in humans.
You're absolutely right. The possibility of animal models didn't even cross my mind when writing the above comment. There probably are such studies. I'll look for them and get better informed.
Working hard implies the labor theory of value, which is that all work is interchangeable. While that might have been closer to the truth during the first industrial revolution, the variability in the value of labor has never been higher than today.
It's comforting to think that those that have achieved the best outcomes in life have simply sacrificed time spent on other things, and spent more time on work. There might be some truth in that, but often they have had better opportunities, due to both circumstance and luck, that they also have made better use of than average.
In the late 80's, heading into the early 90's I was working in manufacturing. Paid poorly, but man! I love that work. Had a great time, worked with people who had real skills and built up a set of my own too.
Saw the outsource waves coming hard. They were big and they were going to gut manufacturing. We all talked about it.
Few of us really did anything about it. I was one of the ones who did.
I started networking. Got out there, started having lunches with people, attending various groups, all sorts of stuff.
Fast forward today: I'm running a startup with a partner doing work with metal additive technologies after a 25 year run in CAD / PLM. Back to manufacturing as an reshoring wave is headed our way. For many doing the work the pay is still not great, but more opportunities are out there now than there have been for a long time.
My peers from that time period are mostly doing the same work, for almost the same pay ( and if that doesn't speak to some troublesome economic policy, I do not know what does ), or are employed in other fields.
A few of us moved up and into another class basically.
Lucky? Hell yes!
But, had I not done the networking, I know absolutely I would not be in the position I am in today.
In a basic sense, this all works a bit like a lottery or raffle. Consider each interaction with others a ticket.
The game is going to reward X number of tickets. And Y tickets may be rewarded due to unplanned opportunity happening as a result of a group of people realizing something is an opportunity that they would not have realized apart or in a different context.
There are Z tickets total, let's say.
People who are active in this way, talking with others, helping others out, seeking help, and doing projects, whatever they can do, get a lot more tickets than most people do.
And because of that they seem more lucky because more of them find opportunity than the baseline people not so active do.
Now, I have one other thing to say and that is about the "do what you love and money will follow" many people say is really only applicable to well off people who are somehow enabled to do what they love because their basic needs are covered somehow, or put another way, they are just not needy which frees them up to explore what they love.
The truth is many of us can do what we love and money will follow, but it's hard work!!
What I did was work my job and put 20 percent of my free time into "hobbies" that were skill builders toward "what I love" and that activity coupled with the networking and helping others is what got me a lot of those raffle tickets to better opportunities!!
I spent a ton of time doing electronics and programming on my own. A lot of it was retro computer based because I love retro computing. That 8 bit era is so damn much fun! I still love it. But, I also used it as a vehicle to build skills I would need later on, and it all worked out. Working on bigger systems helped too. I didn't put all my time into 8 bitters. I had SGI unix systems purchased off ebay, a couple pretty good Linux machines assembled from parts I got many different ways. And I setup an electronics lab made of second hand gear, some things I made myself, and a few gifts from people or trades I got helping others out too.
When opportunity presented itself I knew enough to be able to go for it and knew enough people to get help too.
Don't get me wrong. I've been lucky. Others I know will own their own luck too. ( in comfortable conversation )
But, I also maximized my chances. The cost was a bit less free play time than my peers had, but really it was also time I really enjoyed because it was invested in things I love to do and that really interest me. Mostly, I didn't catch as many movies and as many parties. No joke!
But, I had many more interesting lunches meeting great people doing all sorts of stuff!!
I am nor sure that was a cost as much as it was just living differently.
To sum up:
Sometimes a person gets noticed, or a co-worker can lend a hand up. This happens sometimes, but not too often.
More often a person gets noticed when they are active among other people. This happens more often.
Getting noticed is "that person deserves an opportunity", or "I know a guy who can get this done", or, "Did you see her project? It lines right up...."
Helping others often results in those others wanting to help us in return! Not always, but pretty often.
Doing stuff results in skills, stories one can tell, reasons to talk with others, and a general increase in competency and capability.
All that type of activity is what does tend to very seriously increase one's chance of a "luck" event happening!
They are also what can very seriously improve one's ability to take advantage of a "luck" event, which is what I call an opportunity, generally speaking.
All of what I just said is what one can do when having means, available capital isn't on the table. Wasn't for me. I came from poverty.
And there is no shame in poverty. It sucks. Way too many of us are there and it's not OK. There is a policy discussion to have one day soon. And we should have already had that discussion. Like I said, we should have it one day soon.
The shame, if there is any at all, boils down to those of us able to help others out not doing it. And in like kind, those of us needing help, some opportunity, not doing things to increase our chances of seeing opportunity and being able to act on it in a meaningful way.
*Labor theory of value*
I think you are right about work not being interchangeable. It's not been that way in my experience. Some work is. Other work isn't, and people and their basic nature vary widely too.
This does imply just working hard isn't enough. I don't agree with that at all!
What you do matters. And "working hard" means doing more of the kinds of things needed to improve luck more of the time in my view.
Indeed, gas stations would probably love if all cars were electric. When you stop to charge, you know that you will be stopping for at least 15 minutes, so why not get a cup of coffee and a snack while waiting?
If we're lucky, gas stations might turn into alcohol-free third places where people watch sports, have a meal and hang out while waiting for their car to charge.
Driving ranges are generally high enough that driving from 100 to 0% charge means you should take a legally mandated break. So why not embrace that?
AI-generated stories also do not necessarily displace parent-child storytelling, but probably other activities with similar (non-)levels of parental involvement, such as iPad or TV time.
I really doubt that AI will somehow be our successors. Machines and AI need microprocessors so complex that it took us 70 years of exponential growth and multiple trillion-dollar tech companies to train even these frankly quite unimpressive models. These AI are entirely dependent on our globalized value chains with capital costs so high that there are multiple points of failure.
A human needs just food, clean water, a warm environment and some books to carry civilization forward.