Speaking of Kurzweil, I'm suddenly chuckling inside realizing how all discussion of when his next book would stop getting delayed was abruptly put on the sidelines as ChatGPT rolled out.

So, here's a renewed and obligatory remark on how that book may never be written because we very well may have found ourselves on the on-ramp of the point of no return and there's no keeping up.

The cynic in me immediately agrees but thinking about this more begs the question: What is really being said here? That there are millions of dollars worth of money to be had in eliminating overpaid CEOs with AI.

The more AI is trusted to return profit, the more studies that have been shown to improve productivity by using 4 day work weeks or similar will be used by a hyper efficient AI to grow.

What if such an AI determines that having more healthy consumers is better to increase quarterly profits and begins lobbying for social safety nets, identifying a long term benefit for short term investment?

Far fetched, maybe. But an interesting line of thinking.

The accusation that supporters of Universal Basic Income and automation are "lazy" is misguided and lacks a nuanced understanding of the modern economy and work culture. Many jobs today lack fulfillment or meaning, as evidenced by anthropologist David Graeber's work on "Bullshit Jobs." These jobs often involve menial tasks, bureaucratic paperwork, or other activities that do not provide any real value to society. In such cases, working hard may not contribute to the greater good.

It's important to recognize that work is not inherently valuable, and that the value of work is not solely determined by the level of effort or physical labor involved. In the case of a person who automates their job but spends their free time landscaping their property, it would be misguided to label them as lazy simply because they have eliminated the need for their own labor in one area of their life.

The notion of a "puritanical work ethic" has created an unhealthy and false perception of work and society. Hard work is often viewed as inherently valuable, but this ignores the fact that many people work hard at jobs they do not enjoy, just to make ends meet. Moreover, this view can lead to exploitation and overwork, especially when employees have little power to negotiate better working conditions.

Automation and AI present an opportunity to free people from work that is tedious, dangerous, or unsatisfying. Supporters of UBI and AI see this as an opportunity to create a more equitable society where everyone has access to the basic necessities of life. By providing a universal basic income, individuals will be able to pursue work that is fulfilling, rather than being forced to take whatever job is available simply to survive.

It's worth noting the hypocrisy of society's attitude towards work, especially when we consider the disparity between successful video game streamers and single mothers working multiple jobs just to get by. Streamers are often celebrated for making a living playing video games, yet it was not long ago that video games were viewed as a lazy and parasitical use of time. Meanwhile, single mothers, who are often underpaid and undervalued, work tirelessly to provide for their families. The unequal treatment of these two groups is evidence of the distorted perception of work in our society.

A common criticism of Universal Basic Income (UBI) is that it will encourage laziness and that some people will simply sit around all day doing nothing. However, it's worth asking whether this is really a problem, especially in a world of post-scarcity where resources are abundant. If someone is not harming anyone and is able to live a comfortable life without working, why should it matter if they choose to sit around all day? The reality is that most people eventually get bored of doing nothing and seek fulfillment in their lives, whether through work, hobbies, or other pursuits. Moreover, it's important to recognize that fulfillment in work may not always result in a paycheck. Many people find fulfillment in volunteer work, creative pursuits, or simply spending time with loved ones. The value of work should not be solely determined by its economic output, but also by the personal fulfillment it provides. Ultimately, we should aim to create a society where individuals have the freedom to pursue their passions and find fulfillment, without being forced to work simply to survive.

You misunderstand my statement. Intrinsic motivation does not equal real intent. I'm saying that, on a subconscious level, leftists are driven by a "sense" that is rooted in different emotions than conservatives. I'm also not saying that one group is more or less dangerous. I believe that people will interact with these agents for the bad in different ways

Both become dangerous and extreme but there is one group that is going to be much more likely to use AI to draft up hate against groups of different identities.

The most a leftist, in the scope of most US politics today, is going to be hateful towards is a political belief. You'll get called petite bourgeois and class traitor, sure, but you really don't come across hate on the left in the same flavor you come across hate on the right.

I also live in the south, so I could be extra biased on this

Ideologically speaking, leftists have been shown to empathic motivation (harm avoidance, fairness) while conservatives value moral foundations in group loyalty and deference to authority.

In other words, the way these two groups view people not like themselves is very different. Whenever I see a leftist talking down about a conservative person, it is because of perceived bigotry. It is a political frustration they view as the source of harm/exploitation/power imbalance.

However, most times that I see a conservative talk down on other groups, it is because of immigrants, this group of people, that way of life, or a perceived threat to their identity.

Psychotropic substances have very strong consciousness expanding effects. Outside of sociopaths, I do not come across people that have ingested these substances and not found themselves leaning more left by the end of the year. Thinking more empathetically and less prone towards the types of statements you'd see a hateful person ask a chatbot. There are much better ways to spend one's time.

Again, super anecdotal statement I'm making here.

Here comes an anecdotal statement: I, a leftist, have never used a chatbot to talk up some sense of hatred or disbelief about conservatives.

The first thing that finally made the tech "click" for my Republican family member? Using the chatbot to make a comical tirade letter to his senator about immigrants taking jobs and parasites using welfare.

The following statement is uneducated but I'd stand by it on a gut feeling: if you are coding a system and expecting one group of people to be more hateful than another, to put in restraints for x vs y, it makes a lot more sense to account for the people not taking LSD and mushrooms.

Used to be like this. Now you have to spend the entire conversation trying to circumnavigate its censor.

Loneliness is a very real epidemic. For myself, I want SOTA AI that can communicate with me about recent events. If anyone is complaining it's because this decision delays deployment which delays competition which delays...

That "infinite upside" possibility is really compelling

"Robit get smart faster until boom boom"

This is the point I've tried making when people say "you can't attribute AI to layoffs - we're in a recession".

Automation doesn't displace as it's adopted - it displaces when businesses "trim the fat" during economic hardship. This is what happened in 2008 and had a clear impact on much of the building populism in 2016.

During economic hardship, businesses re-evaluate and try to do more with less. So, yes, layoffs are caused by recessions. But when the economy comes back and production levels reach the same as before with less workers, that's when you realize you've been automated.

Or in most cases, no one talks about the actual thing happening and blame immigrants

... if you are refusing to provide feedback to OpenAI during your use. They are simply asking that if you are using their beta for free that you chip in and help, it's the entire point of a beta

Relative abundance is a concept worth considering. How much food is thrown away vs produced? Housing laying empty per homeless capita? Space needed to power the world with solar power? Trillions of dollars in valuable minerals from one asteroid?

One thing is for sure, the sustain each human's basic survival needs, we have already surpassed the requirements. To sustain a hedonistic treadmill x8 billion, sure, might get dicey. But we are world builders, and I believe the natural path forward includes simulations. Maybe in the short term, maybe in the virtual reality long term.

Of course it does. The singularity is the end of scarcity. Once the needs of any individual on the planet can be met by recursive, self replicating and improving technology, there's no such thing as "profit" anymore.

If you don't have recursive, self replicating and improving technology, you don't have the singularity.

Sure, a person saying that human art is now useless is an idiot, because 1. Clearly humans are still capable of insane art and art quality that outperforms AI and 2. Art is subjective by nature. Who is to say 1 persons art is better than another’s?

But I very much enjoy chiptunes. Music made by actual mechanical board sounds and video game music. A person that informed me that my enjoyment of this type of sound is poor because only vibrations from horse fiber can be considered tasteful is insane.

Undoubtably, there are a lot of toxic prompters and trolls using AI art to poke and prod the reactions of artists that have poured their souls into their own style. These people do suck, of course. But it’s a story as old as art, in my opinion, and misses the real headline: AI is going to displace more people, faster, and we all should be beneficiaries of a technology that wouldn’t be possible without our data

Instead of getting upset at technology, why don’t we both come together and agree that it’s time for a Universal Basic Income? Artists are displaced, not unneeded. The problem is capitalism, not technology. AI is coming from us all, and it is using data from us all. It is time for a technological data dividend

Also you are MORE that free to hate Generated art. I don’t like cubism. And I’m sick of waifus. But you are also more than free to see some cool things and maybe even use it as your own inspiration.

Peace

“uWu did I caws a global financiaw cry sis? OwO”

Not just sentience, DNA. You could also subscribe to the more “woo” areas of panpsychism and believe that all consciousness stems from one source. Perhaps that source is literally seeking experience from all simulations of experience. It could be a technological simulation. It could be a spiritual simulation.

… fuck. Okay, but this can still be true. I chose the most interesting time to be alive: the apocalypse. Death will be taking off the VR headset and returning to the time of me being one of trillions.

Excuse me while I go inhale some more copium.

Not quite a relevant answer but the pace of technological progress juxtaposed with the pace of the climate crisis makes me feel pretty gaslit.

Like I’m gaslit by reality. Out of the billions of years that I could be a sentient thing, the thousands of years I could be a human, I wind up in this time? Really? This has to be a simulation. I chose the most interesting time in history to be alive. That almost feels closer to occams razor then the alternative

We should be using AI to automate work precisely so that we can spend more time reading to our children, not so that we can spend more time preparing our body and mind for the next day’s work.

I’m just realizing my dad never read to me because he was always working and I might be a little hung up about it.

Stable diffusion and the coming AI was not created by one man or company. All of our data is being used for the coming 4th industrial Revolution. Denying that we should be compensated for the data displacing us is ignorant.

Maybe AI won’t automate engineers but surely it will augment and improve the current workload?

I had a couple “well, clearly this is wrong if you consider….” Moments that were addressed the more I read the article. It’s a good hypothesis, definitely made me think a lot more than I thought I would by just the headline alone.

Edit: so more thoughts… I feel like this suggests that meditation and mindfulness could all be about shortening the bandwidth of this perception gap that such a theory creates.

Yeah, seriously. I almost wonder what the point of announcing this is. Like…. Do it again. And then again. Which I’m sure they are, we just need a livestream or something.