Rendered at 23:28:37 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
rayiner 8 hours ago [-]
But this is a good thing for egalitarians. It offsets one of the most unfair aspects of the knowledge economy: that some people get to have much more fulfilling and remunerative careers than average people because they were lucky enough to be born smart.
PorciiVorbesc 6 hours ago [-]
It's actually the opposite. People who are "born smart", will leverage AI to get more knowledgeable even faster, use it to learn new things faster, use it to churn through data to find patterns and opportunities, and use it to do labor for them, so they can make even more money than those not born smart, who will just use AI to ask it what's 3x3 and if the earth is flat.
toasty228 5 hours ago [-]
Inequalities have been growing for a while now, either we have less and less smart people, or it just does not work like you think it works, probably because your take is super naive and barely scratches the surface of first order effects while ignoring everything else
PorciiVorbesc 4 hours ago [-]
>Inequalities have been growing for a while now
I never said it hasn't.
>either we have less and less smart people, or it just does not work like you think it works
How do you think I think it works?
All I said was that AI will increase inequality as smart people will use it as an amplifier of their skills and intelect to get wealthier. The rampant inequality we already had before AI is mostly due to government fiscal policies revolving around endless currency inflation increasing assets prices of asset holders while devaluing wages and savings of the working class, but this is a entirely different topic I didn't cover because I was only talking about what smart people will do with AI to get wealthier, the same way how home computers and the internet allowed smart people to become wealthier 20+ years ago. You then spinning this into some accusations I never said without a an argument to back it up, feels in bad faith and breaking HN rules.
Also, even smart people can also become/remain poor because it takes more than just raw intellect to get wealthy, even with AI, but in general, smart people are orders of magnitude more likely to become financially successful than dumb people, fact.
> probably because your take is super naive and barely scratches the surface of first order effects while ignoring everything else
Please, explain what you think my take and what I'm ignoring. Because i feel like you missed my point entirely and are going on tangents parallel mostly unrelated to what I said. Or do you enjoy throwing accusations in disagreement without a counter argument to back up your PoV?
ramesh31 4 minutes ago [-]
You seem to think "being smart" will matter in a society which doesn't need the labor output of "smart people". You'll be lumped in with all the rest. Nothing will matter but who controls the capital now.
kelseyfrog 6 hours ago [-]
It's actually the opposite and more complicated than that. AI-developed nootropics and germline editing will saturate human intelligence across individuals.
PorciiVorbesc 6 hours ago [-]
If only popping pills were the easy hack to people getting smarter.
That's like saying drinking coffee will make people go faster.
kunai 3 hours ago [-]
I really would like to know what kind of drugs they place in the Bay Area water supply that produce comments like this.
whattheheckheck 6 hours ago [-]
And distribution and will to take bioenhancements is equal across all intelligences?
kelseyfrog 6 hours ago [-]
That is the null hypothesis, yes. Do you have evidence otherwise?
the_real_cher 5 hours ago [-]
A good portion of people hate A.I. and won't even use it...they won't use a computer program to enhance their intellience, much less taking a pill...
kelseyfrog 5 hours ago [-]
This is an inference, not evidence. It doesn't meet my epistemic standard necessary to reject the null hypothesis.
OrderlyTiamat 1 hours ago [-]
Good for you. But you introduced this statement:
> AI-developed nootropics and germline editing will saturate human intelligence across individuals.
This is a forum, not a Bayesian-updating machine. So common courtesy is for you to take up the burden of proof for your own statements. Why do you think this is the null?
eli_gottlieb 2 hours ago [-]
You mean, it proletarianizes yet another stratum of skilled laborer.
rayiner 58 minutes ago [-]
Yes. People’s unhappiness about the economic trajectory since the 1970s is due principally to the growing divergence between skilled knowledge workers and everyone else. Normal people can’t afford a house in the middle class neighborhood where I grew up because it’s been overtaken by Google engineers, not “billionaires.”
the_real_cher 5 hours ago [-]
It seems to me that historically there was a high water mark for what people were able to accomplish on their own and all people, dumb to smart, fell somewhere at or below that high water mark.
My opinion is that our current generation of A.I. will just raise the high water mark for what's possible.
Until we have AGI, ASI, or Recursively improving AI....A.I. in it's current form is a tool that adds a constant to some peoples intelligence and an exponent to other peoples intelligence...and many people of all intelligences refuse to use it.
watwut 5 hours ago [-]
It was not meritocracy. And the thing that cane for whatever merit based advantages were was not AI, but capture of politics by moneyed interests.
K shaped economy is not result of AI.
vannevar 2 hours ago [-]
AI may be coming for meritocracy, but capital got there first.
I never said it hasn't.
>either we have less and less smart people, or it just does not work like you think it works
How do you think I think it works?
All I said was that AI will increase inequality as smart people will use it as an amplifier of their skills and intelect to get wealthier. The rampant inequality we already had before AI is mostly due to government fiscal policies revolving around endless currency inflation increasing assets prices of asset holders while devaluing wages and savings of the working class, but this is a entirely different topic I didn't cover because I was only talking about what smart people will do with AI to get wealthier, the same way how home computers and the internet allowed smart people to become wealthier 20+ years ago. You then spinning this into some accusations I never said without a an argument to back it up, feels in bad faith and breaking HN rules.
Also, even smart people can also become/remain poor because it takes more than just raw intellect to get wealthy, even with AI, but in general, smart people are orders of magnitude more likely to become financially successful than dumb people, fact.
> probably because your take is super naive and barely scratches the surface of first order effects while ignoring everything else
Please, explain what you think my take and what I'm ignoring. Because i feel like you missed my point entirely and are going on tangents parallel mostly unrelated to what I said. Or do you enjoy throwing accusations in disagreement without a counter argument to back up your PoV?
That's like saying drinking coffee will make people go faster.
> AI-developed nootropics and germline editing will saturate human intelligence across individuals.
This is a forum, not a Bayesian-updating machine. So common courtesy is for you to take up the burden of proof for your own statements. Why do you think this is the null?
My opinion is that our current generation of A.I. will just raise the high water mark for what's possible.
Until we have AGI, ASI, or Recursively improving AI....A.I. in it's current form is a tool that adds a constant to some peoples intelligence and an exponent to other peoples intelligence...and many people of all intelligences refuse to use it.
K shaped economy is not result of AI.