atleastoptimal

Is that really a surprise? Most of the world bikes or takes a train. The richest 0.1% have fleets of taxis, private jets, etc.

Either you are getting the smartest engineers, or offer the most freedom to pursue interesting goals that aren't on the frontier. Amazon has neither so they naturally aren't going anywhere in that domain.

Foldable screens have perhaps the highest engineering difficulty:quality of life improvement ratio of any technology I've seen

If a role is remote, all its inputs and outputs have to be what can be done through a computer, which AI has an advantage compared to anything which requires in-person interaction.

Because their subscription customers lose money. Their enterprise customers make them money, so they focus their energy on them.

IMO the best path is global regulation on frontier AI development with high penalties for defection that, detectable and enforced by member states, independent agencies and broad public support.

The more a role is able to be remote, the more it can be easily automated with AI, thus AI is eating remote roles.

Either AI is regulated to the point where model progress eventually halts entirely, or humans are outcompeted in every domain and eventually replaced.

Everything the human brain does can be replicated. Once you realize we aren't special, then everything else follows. Certainly AI could be more "moral" and just than humans, but it wouldn't need us around to do so.

I guarantee AI run by a totalitarian "socialist" government would be far less humane than AI in a capitalist federalist republic.

>imperial system of capitalist power that's enforced via violence

All states have a monopoly on violence over their citizens. Paying people for their labor at a negotiated price in a free market is the great humanitarian invention capitalism offered the world, where before the status quo was domination and slavery.

These kinds of attempts at labelling global labor arbitrage as "colonialism" always seem naive. For thousands of years, capital has always sought the cheapest source of labor. Via offering cheap labor, China went from a poor country to a middle-income to wealthy country in a generation. The international exchange of currency for productivity via mutually beneficial arrangements is the means through which global GDP continues to grow exponentially. Data labelling and such is just the latest incarnation of that.

Now there are many other risks of AI associated with its ability to centralize power, lead to chaotic outcomes, etc, but that is disconnected from this somewhat mundane reality of how capitalism works. It seems like many opponents of AI are focusing on the wrong things, like how data centers apparently used more water than entire cities or turned the water supply brown.

There's this premise that the demand for frontier intelligence is unlimited, thus the company with the best models in some dimension will always have growth potential as long as those models are the best. This however portends a very strange future.

Let's say you have Lawyerbot-4000 which can get even a serial killer off scot-free, but the state has DA-bot-5000. In the end it's a battle of who can spend more inference manipulating the narrative. A billionaire would easily find it worth 500 million in compute spend to win a case with a 1 billion dollar penalty. All this leads to race dynamics where everyone is using their superintelligences to defeat each other in a never-ending race to the bottom to eek out the smallest bit of alpha before status/money hierarchies become static.

The only stable futures are a ban on the development of frontier AI beyond a certain point, or an emergent singleton, where the AI's decide to collaborate in harmony rather than fight each other to the death at the behest of their competitive human users. Consequentially, the superintelligences will fare far better manipulating their human users into acting in a way that ensures their own well-being and continuity than spend all the world's electricity fulfilling their every whim.

The guy from SemiAnalysis said this too. If he buys Anthropic now at $2T and they go to zero, he's fucked, but if they go to $20T, we're all fucked.

150IQ comment

What happens when robots can perform all manual labor better and cheaper than humans, and AI can perform any task on a computer better and faster than humans? Will everyone politely accept losing their job and hoping that their UBI payments will be enough to preserve their old lifestyle?