variadix

Many industries are simply not bottle-necked by intelligence.

They’re unknown because they don’t exist. There will simply be skills that haven’t yet been automated, but nothing will remain out of reach. The idea of having a career in a single field is probably dead, unless that field is minimum wage laborer.

I’m in a similar boat, though I’ve found some solace in that AI development (for me at least) has also made other kinds of work more enjoyable. Previously, since I enjoyed programming, problem solving, and learning more than the end product, I tried to work on projects where I would learn as much as possible which had interesting problems to solve that would make me a better software engineer.

Now I can work on much larger and much more challenging projects where I care more about the end result than learning little details.

Something has certainly been lost, but I’ve at least gained something else in return. I can also do use an empirical approach now, like testing whether a big change would be beneficial without having to map it out and try to estimate the effect. This has made what I try to work on more research-like than engineering-like; I’m trying to figure out if something is possible rather than how to best implement something I know is possible.

I still worry that soon there won’t be any way to contribute economically, that the machine will eventually be better at everything, but this is a much broader problem than just software or even engineering.

This is making the same mistake: looking at where AI is now and not at the rate of progress it’s made. If you have a thinking machine that is more capable than every human on Earth and thinks 100x faster, how long do you think it will take for it to design humanoid robots.

Does paying someone on Fiverr to draw something for you make you an artist?

Indeed. I think this will ultimately require government intervention and regulation to keep it from destabilizing and monopolizing the entire economy. They’ll have to make AI more like a public utility than a private SaaS subscription.

You can’t necessarily do that in C either, it depends on if your object is in a container that relies on pointer stability. Intrusive linked lists are common in C and they get broken by this, for example.

It remains to be seen, but a reasonable argument against this is found in the progression of chess AI engines. After Kasparov was beaten there was still a period where the best humans working with machines were still better than the machines on their own. Eventually (around 2020 I think?) this was no longer the case, having even the best humans on Earth in the loop was a net negative. There are reasonable arguments against this, but I've found them mostly unconvincing.

The wealthy bring the capital required. The problem is fundamentally the commoditization of intellectual labor. It will simply be a game of whoever spends the most wins.

Who cares what it is if most of us suffer as a result?

Almost certainly the collapse of democracy as a political system and the end of nation states. Also a collapse of the human economy and the rise of the AI economy.

Other people have made this point but the short of it is: for the last few hundred years having more humans on your side meant you would probably win a violent conflict with a party with fewer people, ergo majority rule was the mostly peaceful equilibrium. Powerful technology, specifically AI-enabled drones, robots, etc. changes this dynamic to whoever has the most capital: manufacturing capacity, energy access, compute access, etc. This changes the political equilibrium to dictatorship by capital holders. As the value of human labor decreases due to AI and automation, humans will be priced out of the economy and AI agents will transact with each other. There will essentially be a parallel economy with AIs transacting to build e.g. data centers and solar arrays while humans live in squalor because their labor is effectively worthless relative to AI and robots.

This isn’t inevitable but without major changes wrt. AI regulation and capital accumulation it seems like the most likely result. Even with better governance it still seems likely governments will be incentivized to ignore their citizens to accrue more power by funneling money into the AI economy.

None of the sentences in your comment are even close to correct.

Probably meant albedo