If only you were to put that much effort to provide running water, electricity and sanitation
Or maybe they could do more than one thing at a time, and try to solve problems in parallel. Just because someone in Uttar Pradesh doesn't have a flush toilet, doesn't mean that people in Mumbai should just accept suffocating air pollution for the next 13 years.
Why would the rich want to redistribute anything at all?
I dunno. But they do. If you look at a list of the wealthiest zipcodes in America, you will see that most of them vote Democratic, which is a pretty good proxy for supporting redistribution.
....it already exists, and they are free to write/edit it themselves
Wikipedia is hosted outside China, and they are NOT free to edit it because many controversial topics are locked or the "alternative truth" is quickly reverted.
They can use zh.wikipedia.org as a starting point, but if they want a PC encyclopedia, they will have to write their own.
Software is not a marginal cost of $0. It's a huge freakin cost.
You obviously have no idea what marginal cost means.
Someone has to write it, write it well, and then constantly maintain it.
The entire premise of this discussion is that AI will replace all human workers. It doesn't make much sense to say that after AI replaces all the workers, stuff will still be expensive because it will require a lot of human work, and no one will be able to afford it because they won't have jobs.
By the time they are teens they should be making most of their own decisions, so that when they are adults they are capable of managing their own lives. When my daughter was 8, I used parental controls. When she was 13, I turned it off. She was ready to see reality unfiltered. Sure, she was upset the first time she saw a video of a cat being tortured, but she also learned that there are some very bad people out there.
Because there's no chance that advertisers, paragons of virtue that they are, would target teenagers with a the same deluge of spam
The whole point of targeted advertising is to deliver ads that the recipient is actually interested in. That is pretty much the opposite of "spamming". The reality of social media is that it is ad supported, and if you are going to be seeing ads anyway, targeted ads are better than the alternative.
It is neither a good nor a bad thing. It is a meaningless thing. This was about Obama's NN policies. Since Obama is no longer president, and the new guy is changing those policies, a court challenge to the old policies is pointless. Which is why the court declined to hear it.
And the development and licensing of that AI? Does that happen for free too?
Why not? Neural nets are not more difficult than other software, and in many ways they are easier. So why can't an AI build a better AI? No reason that I can see. There are already tons of ANN libraries and frameworks available for free on Github.
Ford Model T.... cost $295.... Ford factory workers pay... $5/day.
The Ford Model T was NOT one of the first cars. By the time the Model T was introduced, cars had already been around for over a decade. They were custom made by hand and were extremely expensive luxury items.
Supporting the poor just gets you more poor people
Bullcrap. The highest birthrate in the world is in Niger, which is one of the poorest. Niger is suffering from desertification, loss of grazing lands, and has chronic food shortages. The highest birthrate in Asia is in Afghanistan. Economic insecurity causes birthrates to go UP, not down.
Most humans, especially Americans, already hate automated service of any kind.
Indeed, this is why a fancy sit-down restaurant can charge a lot more than a cafeteria. People pay for human provided massages, facials, hair treatments, etc. even though there are machines that can do those things far cheaper. There are plenty of jobs that aren't going away.
You think a Mom and Pop shop can buy $90,000 worth of robots to start a business?
Why do you think a robot will cost $90k? Robots will drop in price just as fast as everything else. 100 pounds of aluminum currently costs about $90. Once human bauxite miners are replaced with robot miners, it will cost even less. Just use a sintering 3D printer to make the parts, and the rest is just software, which has a marginal cost of $0.
The first automobiles were luxuries that cost ten times the median annual salary. Early computers cost millions. Today, cars and computers can be owned by anyone. Robots will follow the same trajectory, only faster.
You can either eliminate 50% of jobs, or wipe out poverty. You can't do both.
Sure you can. Wages are not the only way for people to get money.
Once production requires little or no labor, goods and services will have little or no cost, so the cost of supporting the poor through redistribution will be negligible. We can do it with even lower taxes than we have now.
Labor automation must result in a net loss of jobs, or it wouldn't exist.
That is not true, and there are plenty of historical examples to the contrary.
Jevon's Paradox occurs when lower prices due to more efficient production leads to even more demand. So if a product uses half as much labor per unit, but demand goes up by a factor of ten, then you still need five times as many workers as you started with.
Even if the amount of labor needed for a product falls, the savings will be spent/invested elsewhere in the economy, where it may produce even more jobs than were lost. This happened when manufacturing jobs disappeared in developed countries, and were replaced by lower paying, yet more numerous, service jobs.
Many of the richest are giving much of their wealth away through philanthropy. Rich people are not all opposed to helping the poor, especially if it is done in ways that actually help.
there will be no way to gain power through money
Do you mean like the way the Koch brothers used their money and power to put Jeb Bush in the White House?
If the jobs are gone, how are the people going to live?
The bottom quintile of households already get 40% of their income from redistribution. If the "AI revolution" really does lower the cost of production to the point that it is no longer worth paying a human to make stuff, then everything will be so cheap that even today's level of redistribution will mean enough for everyone.
Indeed. Human level face recognition software already exists and it has replaced approximately zero jobs. If you look at productivity growth, it is clear that the pace of humans being replaced by machines is actually slowing down, as service jobs are proving much harder to automate than the manufacturing jobs that disappeared a few decades ago.
This VC's Chicken Little prognosticating is not based on evidence.
While this schedule seems a little too aggressive, such a thing will happen eventually.
The heat death of the universe will also happen eventually. A prediction without a time window is meaningless. There is a huge difference between AI replacing jobs over the next 50 years, and replacing them in 10 years, which is way too quickly for society to adapt.
It's been established that violating the TOS means Tinder can have him prosecuted under the CFAA.
The individuals should also be able to sue him under copyright law. You don't give up copyright just by posting a picture to a website. By downloading, copying, and redistributing the photos as a "dataset", he is clearly breaking the law.
... and I doubt Seattle is the only city that has made these choices.
Go visit Tokyo, which has very little street parking. Downtown street parking is wasteful. Streets should be for driving, and parking lots/garages should be for parking. Eliminating street parking frees up lanes for traffic, and cuts down on the number of cars circling the block looking for a space. In SF about 40% of traffic is people looking for parking.
But changing to a more efficient system is difficult because of the politics of parking.
Don't you dare use the United States Postal Service for deliveries!
The USPS is exorbitantly expensive for any sort of guaranteed delivery. It is also overpriced for packages over a pound. They have weird pricing, like "media mail" where the postage varies, not just by weight and destination, but by the content of the package. So it may be cheap to mail a book, but expensive to mail a t-shirt.
I mean can you imagine the possible efficiency of only one centralized public service
That sounds great in theory, but so does Marxism. Centralization very very rarely beats a competitive market for efficiency.
Slashdot Mirror
If only you were to put that much effort to provide running water, electricity and sanitation
Or maybe they could do more than one thing at a time, and try to solve problems in parallel. Just because someone in Uttar Pradesh doesn't have a flush toilet, doesn't mean that people in Mumbai should just accept suffocating air pollution for the next 13 years.
Why would the rich want to redistribute anything at all?
I dunno. But they do. If you look at a list of the wealthiest zipcodes in America, you will see that most of them vote Democratic, which is a pretty good proxy for supporting redistribution.
....it already exists, and they are free to write/edit it themselves
Wikipedia is hosted outside China, and they are NOT free to edit it because many controversial topics are locked or the "alternative truth" is quickly reverted.
They can use zh.wikipedia.org as a starting point, but if they want a PC encyclopedia, they will have to write their own.
Software is not a marginal cost of $0. It's a huge freakin cost.
You obviously have no idea what marginal cost means.
Someone has to write it, write it well, and then constantly maintain it.
The entire premise of this discussion is that AI will replace all human workers. It doesn't make much sense to say that after AI replaces all the workers, stuff will still be expensive because it will require a lot of human work, and no one will be able to afford it because they won't have jobs.
Cum visit me at https://xxx.pay.me.ru/"
Hey, that link doesn't work.
And what (obviously hypothetical) product could "remove the teens problem"?
1. Antidepressants
2. Dark chocolate
3. Pet adoption
4. Social activities
5. Razor blades
By the time they are teens they should be making most of their own decisions, so that when they are adults they are capable of managing their own lives. When my daughter was 8, I used parental controls. When she was 13, I turned it off. She was ready to see reality unfiltered. Sure, she was upset the first time she saw a video of a cat being tortured, but she also learned that there are some very bad people out there.
Because there's no chance that advertisers, paragons of virtue that they are, would target teenagers with a the same deluge of spam
The whole point of targeted advertising is to deliver ads that the recipient is actually interested in. That is pretty much the opposite of "spamming". The reality of social media is that it is ad supported, and if you are going to be seeing ads anyway, targeted ads are better than the alternative.
Seems like it
It is neither a good nor a bad thing. It is a meaningless thing. This was about Obama's NN policies. Since Obama is no longer president, and the new guy is changing those policies, a court challenge to the old policies is pointless. Which is why the court declined to hear it.
And the development and licensing of that AI? Does that happen for free too?
Why not? Neural nets are not more difficult than other software, and in many ways they are easier. So why can't an AI build a better AI? No reason that I can see. There are already tons of ANN libraries and frameworks available for free on Github.
Ford Model T.... cost $295.... Ford factory workers pay... $5/day.
The Ford Model T was NOT one of the first cars.
By the time the Model T was introduced, cars had already been around for over a decade.
They were custom made by hand and were extremely expensive luxury items.
You'll have to hook me up with your vendor, because the software I use costs quite a bit more than that.
That's because your software is written by a human who expects to be paid, not an AI that works for free.
Supporting the poor just gets you more poor people
Bullcrap. The highest birthrate in the world is in Niger, which is one of the poorest. Niger is suffering from desertification, loss of grazing lands, and has chronic food shortages. The highest birthrate in Asia is in Afghanistan. Economic insecurity causes birthrates to go UP, not down.
Most humans, especially Americans, already hate automated service of any kind.
Indeed, this is why a fancy sit-down restaurant can charge a lot more than a cafeteria. People pay for human provided massages, facials, hair treatments, etc. even though there are machines that can do those things far cheaper. There are plenty of jobs that aren't going away.
You think a Mom and Pop shop can buy $90,000 worth of robots to start a business?
Why do you think a robot will cost $90k? Robots will drop in price just as fast as everything else. 100 pounds of aluminum currently costs about $90. Once human bauxite miners are replaced with robot miners, it will cost even less. Just use a sintering 3D printer to make the parts, and the rest is just software, which has a marginal cost of $0.
The first automobiles were luxuries that cost ten times the median annual salary. Early computers cost millions. Today, cars and computers can be owned by anyone. Robots will follow the same trajectory, only faster.
You can either eliminate 50% of jobs, or wipe out poverty. You can't do both.
Sure you can. Wages are not the only way for people to get money.
Once production requires little or no labor, goods and services will have little or no cost, so the cost of supporting the poor through redistribution will be negligible. We can do it with even lower taxes than we have now.
Labor automation must result in a net loss of jobs, or it wouldn't exist.
That is not true, and there are plenty of historical examples to the contrary.
Jevon's Paradox occurs when lower prices due to more efficient production leads to even more demand. So if a product uses half as much labor per unit, but demand goes up by a factor of ten, then you still need five times as many workers as you started with.
Even if the amount of labor needed for a product falls, the savings will be spent/invested elsewhere in the economy, where it may produce even more jobs than were lost. This happened when manufacturing jobs disappeared in developed countries, and were replaced by lower paying, yet more numerous, service jobs.
The rich won't like that.
Many of the richest are giving much of their wealth away through philanthropy. Rich people are not all opposed to helping the poor, especially if it is done in ways that actually help.
there will be no way to gain power through money
Do you mean like the way the Koch brothers used their money and power to put Jeb Bush in the White House?
This will create prosperity , but only for the owners of the AI.
The "owners of AI" will be anyone will a cellphone.
The rest of us (99.9% of the population) will either starve or suffer in poverty.
Who is going to stop you from running an AI engine on your GPU? The same people that stop common people from owning cars and computers?
If the jobs are gone, how are the people going to live?
The bottom quintile of households already get 40% of their income from redistribution. If the "AI revolution" really does lower the cost of production to the point that it is no longer worth paying a human to make stuff, then everything will be so cheap that even today's level of redistribution will mean enough for everyone.
lol at "recognizing faces" means replacing jobs.
Indeed. Human level face recognition software already exists and it has replaced approximately zero jobs. If you look at productivity growth, it is clear that the pace of humans being replaced by machines is actually slowing down, as service jobs are proving much harder to automate than the manufacturing jobs that disappeared a few decades ago.
This VC's Chicken Little prognosticating is not based on evidence.
While this schedule seems a little too aggressive, such a thing will happen eventually.
The heat death of the universe will also happen eventually. A prediction without a time window is meaningless. There is a huge difference between AI replacing jobs over the next 50 years, and replacing them in 10 years, which is way too quickly for society to adapt.
It's been established that violating the TOS means Tinder can have him prosecuted under the CFAA.
The individuals should also be able to sue him under copyright law. You don't give up copyright just by posting a picture to a website. By downloading, copying, and redistributing the photos as a "dataset", he is clearly breaking the law.
... and I doubt Seattle is the only city that has made these choices.
Go visit Tokyo, which has very little street parking. Downtown street parking is wasteful. Streets should be for driving, and parking lots/garages should be for parking. Eliminating street parking frees up lanes for traffic, and cuts down on the number of cars circling the block looking for a space. In SF about 40% of traffic is people looking for parking.
But changing to a more efficient system is difficult because of the politics of parking.
Don't you dare use the United States Postal Service for deliveries!
The USPS is exorbitantly expensive for any sort of guaranteed delivery. It is also overpriced for packages over a pound. They have weird pricing, like "media mail" where the postage varies, not just by weight and destination, but by the content of the package. So it may be cheap to mail a book, but expensive to mail a t-shirt.
I mean can you imagine the possible efficiency of only one centralized public service
That sounds great in theory, but so does Marxism. Centralization very very rarely beats a competitive market for efficiency.