The AI crash is impossible - Change my View

[something_else]

2 hours ago, LordFall said:

human tendency towards selfishness is worth considering

I would argue it is the primary thing worth considering, given that it has basically defined our species for 200,000 years of history.

Also, I don't think we are really very close to AI actually doing everything for us and providing us all with a life of abundance. I use AI all day for my job as a software engineer and it is insanely good, but not anywhere near good enough that it could be trusted to do the job autonomously. That would be catastrophic. And coding is the complex task that these models are by far the best at right now.

We are at a stage where the economy is going to shift massively in the coming years because you now need one person to do the job of 4 in some white collar fields. But predicting how this will actually go in practice is hard.

[LordFall]

29 minutes ago, something_else said:

I would argue it is the primary thing worth considering, given that it has basically defined our species for 200,000 years of history.

Also, I don't think we are really very close to AI actually doing everything for us and providing us all with a life of abundance. I use AI all day for my job as a software engineer and it is insanely good, but not anywhere near good enough that it could be trusted to do the job autonomously. That would be catastrophic. And coding is the complex task that these models are by far the best at right now.

We are at a stage where the economy is going to shift massively in the coming years because you now need one person to do the job of 4 in some white collar fields. But predicting how this will actually go in practice is hard.

You're underestimating the infrastructure already in place to push this transition forward. AI fucking up and causing unexpected damages sounds like the perfect use case for the insurance industry to step in.

A conglomerate could layoff 10 000 of its staff and replace them with 5000 robots and if 500 of these robots fuckup it's still less expensive than 10 000 wages(made up numbers but you get the idea.)

A minimum wage fast food worker in California can be paid as low as $20 USD/hour, that's a $41.6K/yearly base salary. To replace fast food workers with Robots is not yet economically viable but the tilt of the pendulum towards it being so is most likely gonna happen around 2028 and tilt further towards cost reduction indefinitely in favor of AI labor.

 

Edited 16 hours ago by LordFall

[something_else]

 

17 minutes ago, LordFall said:

You're underestimating the infrastructure already in place to push this transition forward. AI fucking up and causing unexpected damages sounds like the perfect use case for the insurance industry to step in.

A conglomerate could layoff 10 000 of its staff and replace them with 5000 robots and if 500 of these robots fuckup it's still less expensive than 10 000 wages(made up numbers but you get the idea.)

A minimum wage fast food worker in California can be paid as low as $20 USD/hour, that's a $41.6K/yearly base salary. To replace fast food workers with Robots is not yet economically viable but the tilt of the pendulum towards it being so is most likely gonna happen around 2028 and tilt further towards cost reduction indefinitely in favor of AI labor.

How does any of this prove we are all going to be living a life of abundance?

I'm assuming the mechanism by which you see that happening is UBI, but it isn't nearly as developed as you made it out to be in your last post. The Canada bill would require the government to develop a framework for implementing something along the lines of UBI, and it may not even pass. Even if it does pass, it doesn't actually implement UBI, it just requires the government to develop a framework. Progress, yes, but not as far reaching as you make it out to be. It's also just a single country.

The EU has a citizens' initiative advocating for UBI, but that isn't legislation being passed either. Initiatives are proposed for all sorts of things that never ultimately become law.

So where is the actual mechanism that gets us from "AI makes production much cheaper" to "everyone lives in abundance"? What makes you think utopia is the way this will go, and not dystopia?

[LordFall]

The mechanism isn't benevolence or a utopian fairy tale; it's basic alignment of incentives.

Paying the masses a baseline UBI check is vastly cheaper and safer for global capital than triggering widespread civil unrest, bread riots, and asset destruction. It solves the core problem for both classes: the public gets their basic cost of living secured, and the asset-owning class protects their capital and keeps the economic engine humming.

Why would the ruling class choose systemic collapse, ruined consumer markets, and torches at their gates when cutting a basic stimulus check maintains stability and preserves their wealth?

[Joshe]

@LordFall Have you heard of Jev? Look into that and imagine plugging it into a robot. It's basically a near instant decision maker. Hard to explain, but the use cases are going to be insane and I suspect models like Jev are going to be a key component in any intelligent system in the future. 

Edited 13 hours ago by Joshe

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, museumoftrees said:

«The underlying purpose of Al is to allow wealth to access skill while removing from the skilled the ability to access wealth.»

Don't know who said it though.

Yes! Thanks.

[something_else]

3 hours ago, LordFall said:

The mechanism isn't benevolence or a utopian fairy tale; it's basic alignment of incentives.

Paying the masses a baseline UBI check is vastly cheaper and safer for global capital than triggering widespread civil unrest, bread riots, and asset destruction. It solves the core problem for both classes: the public gets their basic cost of living secured, and the asset-owning class protects their capital and keeps the economic engine humming.

Why would the ruling class choose systemic collapse, ruined consumer markets, and torches at their gates when cutting a basic stimulus check maintains stability and preserves their wealth?

I agree with all of this, however I don’t think a post-scarcity UBI driven world would be as happy as it sounds.

You could have a society where everyone has their basic needs covered, cheap entertainment, healthcare, food etc, while almost all productive assets and economic power are owned by a tiny group of people.

So materially, life might actually be very comfortable. But if you have almost no ability to compete economically, accumulate wealth, or meaningfully change your position, then you’re still completely dependent on whatever redistribution the ownership class decides is necessary to keep society stable.

That doesn’t sound like freedom to me. It sounds like some kind of techno-feudalism.

My argument is not that AI is going to create an awful life for everybody, it’s more that I think the range of possible outcomes here is massive and very uncertain. It’s IMO unwise to assume that a post-scarcity ASI-driven world will create a good life for everybody. There are so many ways it could go wrong before we even reach that point, and even more ways it can go wrong if we reach it.

For example, imagine ASI eventually gives a tiny number of people the ability to replace most human labour and potentially wield an unprecedented amount of power over society. The danger isn’t that every billionaire would abuse that power, or even that most would. The danger is that you only need a small number of sufficiently ruthless people controlling sufficiently powerful systems for things to go catastrophically wrong. Human history gives us plenty of examples of what people are capable of when power becomes extremely concentrated, and ASI could amplify that power to a level we’ve never seen before.

Edited 11 hours ago by something_else

[Leo Gura]

Elon Musk went out if his busy way to kill USAID and gave zero fucks about the impact that had on people. You think he will give you UBI?

These people are incapable of caring about others. All they are capable of is enslaving you.

A billionaire is not going to give you anything, he is busy scheming how to take more from you.

Edited 11 hours ago by Leo Gura

[JTL]

why did he destroy USAID? 

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, JTL said:

why did he destroy USAID? 

His brain is so cooked on right-wing ideology that he thinks USAID was for welfare queens who waste government money.

To Musk, giving you money is a "waste". To Musk, your very existence is a waste. He would rather replace you with a robot he can control.

Edited 10 hours ago by Leo Gura

[JTL]

 just yeasterday he said he loves humanity. lol 

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, JTL said:

 just yeasterday he said he loves humanity. lol 

I am sure he believes that.

But he will do whatever gets him more power.

He is incapable of sacrificing his own power for humanity. Love is meaningless without sacrifice.

Edited 9 hours ago by Leo Gura

[LordFall]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Elon Musk went out if his busy way to kill USAID and gave zero fucks about the impact that had on people. You think he will give you UBI?

These people are incapable of caring about others. All they are capable of is enslaving you.

A billionaire is not going to give you anything, he is busy scheming how to take more from you.

If this general sentiment was true we would've never had limits on working hours and other regulation for humane and safe working conditions that we have at least here in the west. I do get your point that we should not give them the benefit of the doubt and ensure it's at the core of AI based policy.

Our man Bernie along those lines is working to setup a sovereign wealth fund that would make the public own 50% of US AI companies in order to fund services for the masses. I haven't looked precisely into what the bill entails but it's encouraging to see it already being discussed in policy circles.

 

2 hours ago, something_else said:

So materially, life might actually be very comfortable. But if you have almost no ability to compete economically, accumulate wealth, or meaningfully change your position, then you’re still completely dependent on whatever redistribution the ownership class decides is necessary to keep society stable.

That doesn’t sound like freedom to me. It sounds like some kind of techno-feudalism.

I agree with the general sentiment of your comment but I'll address this specific part. Do you think most humans are capable of striving for agency and ownership? AI tools are out now, how many people do you know that are up to date with them and using agentic solutions now to secure themselves and their communities against this techno-feudalist dystopia? Your concerns are valid but I want to make sure we avoid this communist pitfall that a lot of people fall into when talking about economic egalitarianism. We need to develop a basic safety net to ensure the survival of the general population but from there competent and already rich people will indeed use AI tools to further enrich themselves. I think that's completely fine and should actually be encouraged.

We have tools at our disposal to regulate the inequality that will keep existing as a result; wealth taxes are amongst the simplest and most powerful effective measures for that. 

Edited 9 hours ago by LordFall

[coca]

@Leo Gura Isn’t it possible for him to maintain his power and tone down the chauvinism, It seems that these chauvinistic antics only hinder him from true greatness. 

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, coca said:

@Leo Gura Isn’t it possible for him to maintain his power and tone down the chauvinism, It seems that these chauvinistic antics only hinder him from true greatness. 

Possible but he is not in that mood. He thinks he's hot shit.

Hitler could improve too, but he didn't want to.

Edited 7 hours ago by Leo Gura

[OBEler]

@Leo Gura "we are not near to AGI, not even close" 

Meanwhile Chat gpt astra scores 98% on Arc-AGI-3. 

[Leo Gura]

14 minutes ago, OBEler said:

@Leo Gura "we are not near to AGI, not even close" 

Meanwhile Chat gpt astra scores 98% on Arc-AGI-3. 

And I trained a monkey to type Shakespeare.

[yetineti]

AI will not become AGI until the training data becomes the training supply.

 

Edited 3 hours ago by yetineti

[Joseph Maynor]

Smart use of AI is really a constructive thing.  

[something_else]

7 hours ago, LordFall said:

Do you think most humans are capable of striving for agency and ownership?

Yes. It is one of the things that defines us as a species. Most humans strive for it, some with more success than others.

7 hours ago, LordFall said:

AI tools are out now, how many people do you know that are up to date with them and using agentic solutions now to secure themselves and their communities against this techno-feudalist dystopia?

What is someone meant to do? "ChatGPT defend me and my family against the AI apocalypse" 

7 hours ago, LordFall said:

Your concerns are valid but I want to make sure we avoid this communist pitfall that a lot of people fall into when talking about economic egalitarianism.

What is the pitfall you are talking about? It isn't clear to me from your comment, could you expand?

7 hours ago, LordFall said:

We need to develop a basic safety net to ensure the survival of the general population but from there competent and already rich people will indeed use AI tools to further enrich themselves. I think that's completely fine and should actually be encouraged.

Yes, a safety net is a good idea. I think UBI would be great if implemented well, but we have no way of knowing that it will be.

"Competent" is doing a lot of the heavy lifting in making that second sentence sound reasonable, but competence of an average individual becomes meaningless in a heavily-automated post-scarcity world. You are outcompeted by a billionaire's ASI in every domain you could possibly develop competence in.

That essentially leaves your argument at "it's a good thing if the rich people who just happen to control the AI continue to empower themselves and their dynasties at the expense of everybody else" which is pretty hard point to defend IMO.

Quote

We have tools at our disposal to regulate the inequality that will keep existing as a result; wealth taxes are amongst the simplest and most powerful effective measures for that. 

I don't know if you realise just how different a post-scarcity world could be from our current one. It's possible money and wealth would cease to exist in their current forms. Our current tools barely work now, let alone in this theoretical world.