amayne

I may have missed something. What are saying specifically?

Okun's law shows a strong correlation between GDP and employment. Which runs counter to your previous claim – as I understand it (please forgive me if I'm not understanding it correctly.)

Did you make a comment somewhere else that I missed?

Fair question. In my anecdotal experience everyone I know who had persistent energy, focus and a mechanism for improving their craft achieved something interesting. Sometimes it was ended up in screenwriting or an adjacent field, but something came of it.

My friends who produced excuses became really good at that. My friends who produced real works and continued to improve became good at that instead.

Exactly. I'm very glad I ignored this kind of thinking.

Exceptions happen. When I decided I wanted to be a novelist I wrote ten books in one year and only released the ones I liked. I'd write a book then read a book on writing and try to improve. I'd give my books away to anyone who asked and turned them into free podcasts.

A year later I was one of the top ten best-selling indie writers on Amazon, I had my first movie deal and representation from an amazing agent who stuck by me through the rough parts.

Luck and timing were big factors. I also locked myself in my house for 12 months straight and did nothing but focus on being a better writer and create as much output as I could to get traction. I spent a tremendous amount of psychotic energy at building my writing business. Most people give up. I was 37 and desperate to make it work.

When I went with a traditional publisher it was frustrating at first. I was getting critical nods (I was a finalist for the Edgar and the Thriller Award) but the sales numbers weren't the same as when I was independent.

Eventually I found a great publisher (an imprint with Amazon Publishing) and it was a perfect match. My first novel with them (The Naturalist) spent six weeks in the number one spot (even outselling Harry Potter.) I now do two books a year with them.

I don't have the quite the sales or name recognition of a James Patterson or Stephen King, but I became a millionaire from publishing and investing on those earnings before I started working in AI.

I can't speak to the part of the article about advances. They're based very heavily on your sales history. I had to work my way up to six-figure advances. If you have John Scalzi sales numbers you can pick your terms. David Baldacci doesn't ask for an advance. He just splits the profits with the publisher. People like him are in a whole different league.

tldr: Luck and timing matter, but so does being an absolutely focused psychopath who gives up a social life, television, games and everything else to get what you want.

Okun’s Law has held up pretty well over the last 60 years. Are you aware of any research that disputes that other than the degree of the coefficient?

Eventually that will probably be the case.

The future isn’t a fixed point. But before then H&R Block (or a company like them) will probably shift to AI. Then eventually your AI will mean you don’t even need them.

The disruptors will get disrupted.

Original author here:

Yes. Rich people tend to re-invest their money and not throw it into a Scrooge McDuck vault to swim in. The re-investing is what helps create economic growth.

Original author here:

A. Some parts of the economy will grow. Some will shrink. My claim is that if you believe that AI will create new efficiencies and continue to do so, then overall economic growth will increase at a faster rate than ever.

B. Predicting what architecture could lead to this growth is beyond the scope of this article. The point was to say that if we keep getting increased efficiencies we'll get increased growth.

C. Job creation accelerates. Before I was hired at OpenAI in 2020, nobody on the planet had ever been hired as a prompt engineer. Now it's a career (at least for the time being.)

D. I'm assuming maximizing profit in the most near-sighted way possible. Same as it has ever been.

Is there a specific claim or argument that you disagree with?

Original author here (not ChatGPT):

My claim is that H&R Block would replace all their workers for more efficient AI if it was more profitable. Then they would re-invest that money in the most productive way they can – other companies, etc. This is the same strategy as Apple, Microsoft and other companies do with large amounts of cash.

I don't claim H&R Block would be directly creating new jobs. They would try to maximize profit by investing their profits and diversifying.

If Pac-Man and the ghost positions are on the x axis, what is the y axis used for?

GPT-3 Davinci from 2020 could do this too:

Segment this text into proper sentences:

Input:

UNDERNEATHTHEGAZEOFORIONSBELTWHERETHESEAOFTRANQUILITYMEETSTHEEDGEOFTWILIGHTLIESAHIDDENTROVEOFWISDOMFORGOTTENBYMANYCOVETEDBYTHOSEINTHEKNOWITHOLDSTHEKEYSTOUNTOLDPOWER

Output:

1. Underneath the gaze of Orion's belt, where the sea of tranquility meets the edge of twilight, lies a hidden trove of wisdom forgotten by many, coveted by those in the know. 2. It holds the keys to untold power.