RivieraKid

The general problem is how to ensure quality in a low-competitive-pressure environment, especially public services which are natural monopolies. Quality only appears randomly if the right people happen to be in charge.

Look at what competition does in the AI model space. Imagine there was just OpenAI vs the actual case where there's Anthropic and others which pressure and copy each other.

I wonder if there's any solution to this, I couldn't think of any.

> I mean if your profit metric is showing all green and growing you have to be really cold to say we need to fire 1/4 people now why? (to maximize shareholders short term value of course)

Yes, it's cold, but in the grand scheme of things, it's good for the society if companies are efficient and the economy is efficient. An efficient economy means that we can produce and consume more per hour worked.

Such behavior by companies may not be in my self-interest but that's another matter.

Why amoral? If a an employee costs the company more than they make, it means the owner of the company is essentially donating his money to the employee. Is it amoral to not do that? What if the owner wants to donate the money to cancer research instead?

I've looked into it before but it's just not on the same level of artistic quality and taste as the original.

I wish someone would create new faction.

Fossil fuels were just a booster that let us skip 2 centuries.

Damn, I just made a similar comment before reading this one.

What if the filter is that other civilizations don't have an incentive to expand?

The core reason why we want to consume more resources is that we want to be happier, which really means we want to make certain physical changes in our brains. If we cut the middlemen and find a way to directly control how we feel, there would be no need to expand, because it wouldn't increase our happiness.

Edit: Just found out someone else has made the exact same point in another comment before me.

How was AI used when writing the article? Not implying anything, I haven't started reading it (yet).

The weights in the fly's brain are unknown, the connectome doesn't contain such data. Not sure what exactly these demos do, but it's certainly not a simulation of the fly's brain.

This is just nonsense, nice house in a rich country is $2-4M. $10M is enough to FatFIRE as a family.

I don't know, probably not.

In any case, reading summaries (and occasionally following up by reading the full article) is more enjoyable and you learn more per unit of time. Most articles are mostly garbage. And even insightful and informative articles can often be compressed with minimal loss of conveyed insight and information. Typical example is some of Paul Graham essays (I say some because only some are worth reading).

I just copy-paste the text and ask AI to summarize for 90% of articles I see on HN. One of the most time-saving uses of AI.

Well this is what I was hinting at in my original comment. The main determinant of how people feel about AI is whether it threatens their source of income because at the end of the day, that's far more important than everything else.

Sure, you will be slightly better positioned if you're excited about this tech, but the impact will be typically marginal, IMHO.

Not sure about UBI. There will be enough jobs for the foreseeable future, AI only threatens the "sitting behind a computer" class of comfy jobs. But this is a tangential topic...

Well what I'm worried about is that as AI gets better, everyone will be able to use AI to produce things. Just describe the product, or just point to an existing product, and that's it. In other words, AI could became better than every developer while being cheaper. So you won't be able to get paid for your work as a developer and will need to either retire or find another source of income.