Recent submissions

Comment · 2 months ago
But only one of them need to succeed for PG to make a lot of money.
Comment · 2 months ago
3- The CS rep tought that would make them more favourable to their manager.
Comment · 4 months ago
How can you get the agents to do anything useful without giving them meaningful access?

If it only lives in an isolated sandbox, it can only act within the sandbox, then I would have to manually move what was done in the sandbox to real-life.

I am not saying it should have critical access, but this is more of a question: How can you get value out of AI if it can only act in a sandbox?

Comment · 5 months ago
Comment · 5 months ago
Exactly. And this is why ideas like post-scarcity or universal-high-income are not realistic. Because we can already make life heaven on earth for everyone alive. But we won't. Not because we do not have the resources or means of production, but because we do not have the willingness and systems in place. If we do not fix these first, AI-abundance will bring more suffering, not more prosperity.

We should fix this and feed, house, and cloth everyone. We should create the systems so people are taken care of, and critical mass of people have enough culture and education and good incentives so it sustains. Once we know we can do this and the culture and the systems are irrevocably change in humans' favour, we should then look at AI-abundance.

Comment · 6 months ago
Just learn, sure. But the difference between my efficiency of using it on my day 2 and month 6 is significant. Yet I feel I am barely scratching the surface of it.
Comment · 6 months ago
The reason for food shortages is not scarcity of food, nor the reason for shelter, clothing, or transportation.

We have enough technology and resources to make it a heaven for everyone except for unpreventable diseases or similar.

Yet we do not because we did not crack the human-alignment problem.

That’s the problem we need to solve, not the resource problem.

If we solve the resource problem before the human alignment problem, we will cause unimaginable suffering.

Comment · 6 months ago
If the assets are public and not associated to my account, how could they ever restore access if they made them inaccessible?
Comment · 6 months ago
My guess is that if they take down the public hosting, most clients would lose access to work they paid for and fiverr has no way to put these back behind an authorisation. It is just a public list of files, either everyone has access to your file, or do not, including you.
Comment · 6 months ago
I can’t elaborate on your example as I’m not very knowledge-able on the smallpox vaccine bit that depends on how close we were to inventing the vaccine anyway - I’ll take your word on we were not and Edward Jenner had a revolutionary advancement. Then we can say we have the vaccine thanks to him.

But when it comes to space technology, if it was possible to produce the same technology by targeting the required technology directly, we can’t say it was because of war only because some of the inventions of war were re-used. It eould be like saying we have a 45th president thanks to Trump - it would be absurd as we’d have a 45th president anyway.

So I do not think there is enough grounds to attribute this mission’s success to war - with some of the war’s budget, NASA could have invented the required technology anyway.

Comment · 6 months ago
No.

Because success is individual, inequality is statistical.

It ia true that AI gives ordinary people a lot more chance to be successful.

But do not forget that success depends on lots of factors that are not in one’s control: knowing the right people, time being right for what you are doing, and lots of others. So while the mechanics of success is a lot different to lottery, it does not work much differently: 1 in 1M attempts are successful.

Yes, AI gives everyone more lottery tickets, but it gives rich people a lot more tickets.

Comment · 6 months ago
I would rather you did not do that. You would create a shit tone more global transfer of goods accelerating global warming, and make societies dependant on unsustainable dirt cheap production practices.

Even if yourself could argue that you’ve done a good thing overall, I’d rather not take your word on that and would rather not have you decide something so extremely impactful.

Comment · 6 months ago
Is what you say really controversial?

Except for commercial flights (which I would easily give up for a hopeful society), I do not find anything on your list remotely relevant to my happiness or well-being.

Imported cheap goods are obviously something all of us consume a lot, but we only need them to feel good in comparison to our neighbours.

As long as we keep them for hospitals and medicine, the rest going away would be just fine. Children would play with whatever they can find instead of cheap plastic toys, we would have to learn to multi-purpose our tools instead of having a specific object for every minor purpose.

Comment · 6 months ago
To say “because of war”, you would also have to prove we could not do it without war.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton