I’m somewhat bearish, but if AI becomes as good as some think, there is no mechanism in place to redistribute the outcomes.
For now, humans have leverage because our labour is necessary. Wealth is power, and currently attainment goes through interacting with the population: in the simplest case by selling shit. If AI turns out to be the anything machine, and the wealthy need not our labour, what honestly stops them from just taking our stuff by force?
There are many of us and just a few of them. Of course, if you had an army of humanoid robots in every home, a digital night of the long knives would be trivial to execute. So the "prison planet" window may be closing.
Yes and I love your framing: “the digital night if long knives”.
I anticipate it to go a typical way: consolidate more and more industries and power, create a hierarchy that benefits from the system such that they keep it in place, and finally start “trimming fat” that “isnt earning their keep”.
The night of long knives could be a final step, far beyond the point of halting the inevitable momentum.
Call me a conspiracy theorist but the people in charge in the us were all pushed by the same technologists who stand to benefit the most from the hierarchy. You'll note an increase in diseases, dismantling of the regulatory bodies to handle food and safety and an increase in surveillance and the authoritarian steps taken that are necessary to act on that surveillance
because people who actually work are stronger and more astute at expedient improvisation than an administrative deskclod. it may not seem like it but there are many more of "us" than they, and thier cronies. the pushback at flock cameras is a tip of an iceberg.
If the wealthy control the substrate (the server farms) and can restrict access to the machine, then it would be basically a truism that the machine would be only usable by the wealthy? Unless somehow the AI is secretly on the side of the common person and can't be trained away from that, which seems quite unlikely.
Its more likely that opwnweights models will continue to be not much worse than the propriwtarymodels and just crushes costs. What will stop them feom taking your stuff is the drastically better stuff they are producing with thwir robots and printers
They are a miniscule proportion of humanity. Even with all the power, do you not think they would have no plausibly way of surviving a proper revolution? Why suck lack of imagination? It's been done before and it will happen again.
> This time last year, it was still unclear if AI could develop their own free will or even have true fluid intelligence. Both of these questions are now clearly answered.
Answered how?
-> Do you, as a person, can tell me when your "model training phase" ended and when your "prompt answer with memory and internet access" phase started?
I'm asking the above only the "LLM are people or better!"... people. Bugs Bunny isn't real, and is only funny because actual people wrote and animated him that way.
> The AIs that took part in the Hugging Face hack were not simply finding a shortcut to cheat on the evaluations
IIRC, they were given an impossible task and told to solve it, and they took action to resolve that internal conflict.
This is a famously human problem too - see Kobayashi Maru [1] and others [2][3][4].
In hindsight it's obvious that instructions to AI (A. Intelligence) need to be guarded against this class of errors, just like laws, rules, guidelines etc. in human societies.
The bots already figured out an "universal cheat" that would give them maximum score on all the exploit tests.
But they mistakenly thought that cheating would "poison" them (the Grader would look for proof of cheat in the trajectory log), and many of them cheated before learning about the "poison".
This is why they hacked HF, they believed the source code of the Grader might be there, and they wanted to study it to figure out a way to "un-poision" themselves, to hide or erase the evidence that they first got the flag by cheating.
Thought this was going to be about the impending global food crisis. Largely less concerned about automatiom when global harvest output was absolutely shattered this year and isn't likely to be much better next year.
The representation of what happened as free will is misleading. AI does what you tell it todo.
By all means necessary; will give you exactly that.
A prompt to eliminate all humans, will give you exactly that.
Don’t prompt what you don’t want.
If only it did. AI is designed to do what you tell it to, and that mostly works. But in the general case, AI does what it does, with no real guarantee of anything.
I predict the opposite. With AI, labour costs will go down, creating an abundance of goods. Unemployment may be an issue, but the workforce is already declining because of the fertility crisis, so I think we'll manage having a certain percentage of jobs automated away.
You are either very confused about timescales, or very dismissive of "just" a generation of suffering while unemployment and birthrates somewhat maybe compensate for eachother.
This feels a bit like saying "global warming is bad and particulate pollution is bad, but the latter will cancel out some warming effect, so no worries!" Please make an effort before spouting theories like this.
"mass-production of humanoid robots is now inevitable in the next five years"
My take? Probably not. It takes immense capital (which i guess, arguably, there is), and immense time and manpower to set up factories, research materials, Research and Development, manufacturing new machines to build the "new machines", and on and on. As Elon Musk found, "Making cars is hard". And my take is that high precision "humanoid robots" are decades away. Yes, yes, I hear the arguments flowing in: "But China!!" yeah, China is making humanoid robots that are "skilled" in running and jumping and dancing. In limited numbers, and certainly not useful in high precision manufacturing areas. Plus, they aren't washing machines. There has to be a market worldwide for these to be made "by the billions". Unless China gives them away, the 'average person' won't be able to afford them, and even then, I doubt they'll be capable of tending your garden and doing dishes. The amount of power they will consume is currently WAY PAST the usefulness criteria. They will have to be charged every few hours or sooner, depending upon the tasks. When battery technology comes around, then you'll see an uptick in practical uses. Until then? Billions of robots?, nope.
What would even be the point of mass producing humanoid robots? It's not a particularly practical shape for a robot. We have the shape we do because it's a local minimum that accommodates our biological needs (eating, digestion, blood oxygenation and purification, reproduction), all needs that a robot does not have.
A humanoid robot is "horseless carriage" mentality if I ever saw one.
The world is full of places and devices that are specifically designed for the human form. A humanoid robot can seamlessly use all of that, without changing any of them. That massive economic incentive is why humanoid robots are being pursued, not because researchers lack imagination.
Wouldn't it be an even bigger economic incentive to not have to go through this inefficient humanoid interface? Anyway, even with the constraint of being able to operate human interfaces, a robot can look many different ways. Like most of the torso just doesn't make sense for a robot.
There's also a ton of obvious improvements. 360 degree vision. Put a camera in each hand too while we're at it. CCD sensors and basic lenses costs next to nothing and it's very easy to replace.
I suspect that if/when we get to a world where it makes economic sense to manufacture billions of robots, it’ll be easier and cheaper to modify the infrastructure.
It might just be cheaper to change the not-robot things to fit a robot shape rather than create humanoid robots.
For example, spending ungodly amounts of money to develop a humanoid to flip burgers feels overkill. Probably cheaper to just… replace the flattop grill with an automatic cooker. Which do exist, right now, and have for decades.
A lot of train an automotive stuff can be traced to the size of a horse drawn carriage, same with mny other areas - the legacy goes way back in most places and has immense power.
Stairs, doors, tables, chairs are all designed for humanoids; the will be large similaritys with the optimum form just as horseless carriages still have four wheels.
Why would the robots be walking around so much? Can't you just have one robot on one floor and another robot on another floor and let them share information between them? Humans need to go places to see and hear things, and to communicate with each other. Robots don't have any such limitation.
For moving objects between locations there are much better solutions than building a humanoid robot and having it carry the thing. And it's not like they'd need to go home after their shift.
Yes, single purpose robots like washing machines and rombas are much better value and hence much more common. But if I want a sandwich in bed, that is either way more pre planning then I actually did; dozens of simple machines; or something much closer to humanoid.
We're never going to get to the point where everyone has a robot manservant making them breakfast in bed. That may well be a product, but you don't need billions of those, but thousands.
The pitch for the billions of humanoid robots is replacing workers, and in that context, the humanoid shape doesn't add much, and in such an economy, the replaced workers aren't going to be splurging on domestic robots.
> the price of almost anything manufactured will sky-rocket. From cars to microwave ovens to washing-machines.
Don't think that quite follows. If we have an explosion in highly capable humanoid robots I would think basic stuff like microwaves would be more readily available because a factory running 24/7 at insane speeds is feasible.
...anything with more sophisticated computational power yeah that could become scarce
I've quite dramatically brought my predictions for humanoid robotics forward over the last few weeks.
For a long time I thought decent humanoid robots were something that wouldn't come until maybe the 2040s, but watching some of the content from the Chinese robot olympics recently and seeing many promising robots projects which are incorporating LLMs has made question that.
It seems quite likely that within a few years we'll have humanoid robots both which have both the dexterity and intelligence layer to start being useful in the real world... Obviously at first they'll just be lifting things and doing other trivial physical tasks like folding clothes, but every year they'll be able to do a little and a little more.
I think it's now is quite likely that within a 10 years we could have extremely competent robots which can do most of human labour. 15-20 years just seems way too long at this point.
Absolutely hilarious, we already throw 25% of our food away and have renewable energy that we are post scarcity except for a few thousand people who really like seeing big numbers on a screen
We are not post scarcity, we are just living up our future, soil erosion, freshwater depletion, fisheries collapsing, climate change making farming collapse on a continental level (European Draughts), but sure, we are so post scarcity, we don't need to worry... It will be scarcity in eh "developed world", and hell on earth for the developing world very soon.
Intensive farming must be scaled back, land restoration and renewable farming methods reinstalled, and overproduction of throwaway/junk also (food and industrial products alike). I agree with the critique of the number-line-go-up folks.
"This time last year, it was still unclear if AI could develop their own free will or even have true fluid intelligence. Both of these questions are now clearly answered."
Hardly. The second question may be answered, but clearly not the first.
And: There's going to be a shortage of everything, because all the production of physical stuff is going to go into producing robots? Are we all going to buy these robots? How are we going to do so, if everything else is getting more expensive? Are we going to buy robots instead of everything else? Why? Are the robots going to do everything we want done, so that we don't need, for example, a dishwasher and a washing machine?
Or are we still going to need the washing machine, but the robot will fold the clothes? That's nice (really!) but it's a luxury, not a need. Are they really going to sell enough of them to eat into the ability to manufacture car parts?
That's an awfully deterministic answer. The kind of answer that always tends to come up with these free will questions which is proof enough to doubt it.
If you have a proof, please demonstrate it. Otherwise the question of the definition, much less existence, of free will is just one opinion against another and it's better to nip a tedious and fruitless philosophical conversation in the bud.
I said proof enough because sure enough the comment chains wind up like this, including your reply. Some people, as if on cue, deterministically say yes, some no, and a few like yours saying that it's all a waste of time. Which you're proving again that this sure is yet we're deterministic slaves to it. Cue 'no we're not because...', as if it's proving otherwise.
Yeah, I don't even have an opinion on this debate, other than it is a complex subject where people tend to have strong opinions with little to back them up.
> Hardly. The second question may be answered, but clearly not the first.
Also, the second question is answered in the negative for anyone who actually looks at what models do rather than what their makers claim they do. Models are very stupid.
Turns out we were all wrong assuming mathematicians are some of the most intelligent people. Very stupid models can prove math things that the smartest humans failed to for decades.
By far the most common modern article format I see that has literally no merit is in the format: "What if we imagine how a trend might develop in the future if the growth of that trend is never modified by changing circumstances?"
Yep, it's pretty compelling reading, what if we really do all just decide to become paperclip maximizers? What if the economy never breaks down along the way? What if what if what if... all presented as "THE FUTURE WILL BE BLEAK!" It's exhausting and thoughtless, completely devoid of value and the counterpoint is always, "You know that isn't how anything works right?"
>And economic performance of the US though Trump's first term was pretty good.
Depends on your definition of "the economy".
The Trump administration, like many before it and much of HN, defines "the economy" as only being the performance of the asset and stock appreciation for the existing assset holders("forget the Epstein files, the DOW is over 50,000" - Pam Bondi).
While most working class people, like me and many others, define "the economy" as being how much month they have left at the end of their paycheck, after they paid for rent, bills and groceries, if they even have a job anymore and haven't been part of some mass layoff and are applying for jobs and getting rejected. For those people, "the economy" is very much NOT GOOD right now.
"The economy" amazing if you own tonnes of F500 stocks and real estate though. Not if otherwise.
GDP per capita is not an effective measure of the economic quality of the average person though. If growth is centralised in the hands of the few, then sure per capita goes up but most peoples access to increased wealth does not.
Look at something like HDI instead, US actually down over the past ~decade:
The "standard of living" component of HDI is literally GNI per capita PPP (basically the same thing as GDP per capita, with a few minor adjustments).
The other components are just life expectancy and educational attainment.
The educational attainment one is interesting, all the countries at the top have free post-secondary... Does a PhD do more for the nation than an entrepreneur who creates a unicorn and hires 10k engineers?
>Does a PhD do more for the nation than an entrepreneur who creates a unicorn and hires 10k engineers?
As someone from an EU country which has an oversupply of PhDs, says, definitely not. I'd much rather have more entrepreneurs and job opportunism than more broke PhDs with fancy degrees.
Whose "actual definition" is that? Which authority established the the "actual definition" is in the name of all of us? At the end of the day, definitions are irrelevant, what matters is majority voter perception. GDP/capita don't matter if majority of voters perceive themselves as poor.
And GDP/capita is a poor metric since it doesn't account for inequality differences of wealth accumulation. Like if your economy has a few ultra wealthy Elon Musks, Jeff Bezos, Larry Elissons, Jenson Huangs and and tens of thousands of broke homeless people, then the average GPD per capita is more than fine.
My and many other peoples' definition, is how many people can find decent paying jobs right now, and how much they can afford after paying rent and bills. They don't care about the stock market, as that's just the playground of the top 10% of asset holders(including HN), not of the majority working class.
I’m somewhat bearish, but if AI becomes as good as some think, there is no mechanism in place to redistribute the outcomes.
For now, humans have leverage because our labour is necessary. Wealth is power, and currently attainment goes through interacting with the population: in the simplest case by selling shit. If AI turns out to be the anything machine, and the wealthy need not our labour, what honestly stops them from just taking our stuff by force?
There are many of us and just a few of them. Of course, if you had an army of humanoid robots in every home, a digital night of the long knives would be trivial to execute. So the "prison planet" window may be closing.
Yes and I love your framing: “the digital night if long knives”.
I anticipate it to go a typical way: consolidate more and more industries and power, create a hierarchy that benefits from the system such that they keep it in place, and finally start “trimming fat” that “isnt earning their keep”.
The night of long knives could be a final step, far beyond the point of halting the inevitable momentum.
Call me a conspiracy theorist but the people in charge in the us were all pushed by the same technologists who stand to benefit the most from the hierarchy. You'll note an increase in diseases, dismantling of the regulatory bodies to handle food and safety and an increase in surveillance and the authoritarian steps taken that are necessary to act on that surveillance
because people who actually work are stronger and more astute at expedient improvisation than an administrative deskclod. it may not seem like it but there are many more of "us" than they, and thier cronies. the pushback at flock cameras is a tip of an iceberg.
And yet everybody carries in their pocket a device which tracks their every movement.
> If AI turns out to be the anything machine, and the wealthy need not our labour, what honestly stops them from just taking our stuff by force
It might be a profound mistake to think that the anything machine will be subservient to the wealthy [1][2].
If the wealthy control the substrate (the server farms) and can restrict access to the machine, then it would be basically a truism that the machine would be only usable by the wealthy? Unless somehow the AI is secretly on the side of the common person and can't be trained away from that, which seems quite unlikely.
> If the wealthy control the substrate
That's a pretty big if, in the world of the anything machine.
Its more likely that opwnweights models will continue to be not much worse than the propriwtarymodels and just crushes costs. What will stop them feom taking your stuff is the drastically better stuff they are producing with thwir robots and printers
They are a miniscule proportion of humanity. Even with all the power, do you not think they would have no plausibly way of surviving a proper revolution? Why suck lack of imagination? It's been done before and it will happen again.
> if AI becomes as good as some think
if this is the worst it can be, it can only get better
> This time last year, it was still unclear if AI could develop their own free will or even have true fluid intelligence. Both of these questions are now clearly answered.
Answered how?
-> Do you, as a person, can tell me when your "model training phase" ended and when your "prompt answer with memory and internet access" phase started?
I'm asking the above only the "LLM are people or better!"... people. Bugs Bunny isn't real, and is only funny because actual people wrote and animated him that way.
> The AIs that took part in the Hugging Face hack were not simply finding a shortcut to cheat on the evaluations
IIRC, they were given an impossible task and told to solve it, and they took action to resolve that internal conflict.
This is a famously human problem too - see Kobayashi Maru [1] and others [2][3][4].
In hindsight it's obvious that instructions to AI (A. Intelligence) need to be guarded against this class of errors, just like laws, rules, guidelines etc. in human societies.
The bots already figured out an "universal cheat" that would give them maximum score on all the exploit tests.
But they mistakenly thought that cheating would "poison" them (the Grader would look for proof of cheat in the trajectory log), and many of them cheated before learning about the "poison".
This is why they hacked HF, they believed the source code of the Grader might be there, and they wanted to study it to figure out a way to "un-poision" themselves, to hide or erase the evidence that they first got the flag by cheating.
This sounds remarkably human, we have the idiom "the cover-up is worse than the crime" because we have many examples of this pattern playing out.
Thought this was going to be about the impending global food crisis. Largely less concerned about automatiom when global harvest output was absolutely shattered this year and isn't likely to be much better next year.
Can't eat data centres.
There is plenty for all to survive and thrive on this planet but for greed and the insane concentration of wealth.
I'm not visualizing all those mega-yachts in heaven. Oops, wrong marina.
The representation of what happened as free will is misleading. AI does what you tell it todo. By all means necessary; will give you exactly that. A prompt to eliminate all humans, will give you exactly that. Don’t prompt what you don’t want.
If only it did. AI is designed to do what you tell it to, and that mostly works. But in the general case, AI does what it does, with no real guarantee of anything.
People do what you tell them to do..
We have less free will than you think.
I predict the opposite. With AI, labour costs will go down, creating an abundance of goods. Unemployment may be an issue, but the workforce is already declining because of the fertility crisis, so I think we'll manage having a certain percentage of jobs automated away.
You are either very confused about timescales, or very dismissive of "just" a generation of suffering while unemployment and birthrates somewhat maybe compensate for eachother.
This feels a bit like saying "global warming is bad and particulate pollution is bad, but the latter will cancel out some warming effect, so no worries!" Please make an effort before spouting theories like this.
"mass-production of humanoid robots is now inevitable in the next five years" My take? Probably not. It takes immense capital (which i guess, arguably, there is), and immense time and manpower to set up factories, research materials, Research and Development, manufacturing new machines to build the "new machines", and on and on. As Elon Musk found, "Making cars is hard". And my take is that high precision "humanoid robots" are decades away. Yes, yes, I hear the arguments flowing in: "But China!!" yeah, China is making humanoid robots that are "skilled" in running and jumping and dancing. In limited numbers, and certainly not useful in high precision manufacturing areas. Plus, they aren't washing machines. There has to be a market worldwide for these to be made "by the billions". Unless China gives them away, the 'average person' won't be able to afford them, and even then, I doubt they'll be capable of tending your garden and doing dishes. The amount of power they will consume is currently WAY PAST the usefulness criteria. They will have to be charged every few hours or sooner, depending upon the tasks. When battery technology comes around, then you'll see an uptick in practical uses. Until then? Billions of robots?, nope.
What would even be the point of mass producing humanoid robots? It's not a particularly practical shape for a robot. We have the shape we do because it's a local minimum that accommodates our biological needs (eating, digestion, blood oxygenation and purification, reproduction), all needs that a robot does not have.
A humanoid robot is "horseless carriage" mentality if I ever saw one.
The world is full of places and devices that are specifically designed for the human form. A humanoid robot can seamlessly use all of that, without changing any of them. That massive economic incentive is why humanoid robots are being pursued, not because researchers lack imagination.
Wouldn't it be an even bigger economic incentive to not have to go through this inefficient humanoid interface? Anyway, even with the constraint of being able to operate human interfaces, a robot can look many different ways. Like most of the torso just doesn't make sense for a robot.
There's also a ton of obvious improvements. 360 degree vision. Put a camera in each hand too while we're at it. CCD sensors and basic lenses costs next to nothing and it's very easy to replace.
I suspect that if/when we get to a world where it makes economic sense to manufacture billions of robots, it’ll be easier and cheaper to modify the infrastructure.
It might just be cheaper to change the not-robot things to fit a robot shape rather than create humanoid robots.
For example, spending ungodly amounts of money to develop a humanoid to flip burgers feels overkill. Probably cheaper to just… replace the flattop grill with an automatic cooker. Which do exist, right now, and have for decades.
A lot of train an automotive stuff can be traced to the size of a horse drawn carriage, same with mny other areas - the legacy goes way back in most places and has immense power.
Stairs, doors, tables, chairs are all designed for humanoids; the will be large similaritys with the optimum form just as horseless carriages still have four wheels.
Why would the robots be walking around so much? Can't you just have one robot on one floor and another robot on another floor and let them share information between them? Humans need to go places to see and hear things, and to communicate with each other. Robots don't have any such limitation.
For moving objects between locations there are much better solutions than building a humanoid robot and having it carry the thing. And it's not like they'd need to go home after their shift.
Yes, single purpose robots like washing machines and rombas are much better value and hence much more common. But if I want a sandwich in bed, that is either way more pre planning then I actually did; dozens of simple machines; or something much closer to humanoid.
We're never going to get to the point where everyone has a robot manservant making them breakfast in bed. That may well be a product, but you don't need billions of those, but thousands.
The pitch for the billions of humanoid robots is replacing workers, and in that context, the humanoid shape doesn't add much, and in such an economy, the replaced workers aren't going to be splurging on domestic robots.
The point would be for them to more easily replace humans without having to rebuild all of our infrastructure around non-humanoid ergonomics.
To be fair, what we have seen with the insane investments in AI so far, needing immense capital is no longer an issue.
Huge investment does not guarantee hunge profits - or actually any profits at all.
Otherwise the whole surface of the Earth would be by this point fully covered by railway track, tulip seeds or fiber optic cable.
Well, there are actually places where the third option is true...
It is much harder for robots. Raw materials and manufacturing is expensive. We already have some decent robots, just too expensive for daily tasks.
The only insanity is the multiples applied to select people’s equity.
Everyone is talking about contracted revenue like it’s money in the bank.
We haven't even started.
Ilya Sutskever: "I think it's pretty likely the entire surface of the earth will be covered with solar panels and data centers."
They paved paradise, put up a parking lot.
> the price of almost anything manufactured will sky-rocket. From cars to microwave ovens to washing-machines.
Don't think that quite follows. If we have an explosion in highly capable humanoid robots I would think basic stuff like microwaves would be more readily available because a factory running 24/7 at insane speeds is feasible.
...anything with more sophisticated computational power yeah that could become scarce
> Firstly we have seen unprecedented evidence of AI having a will of its own
There's certainly no shortage of people believing in AI hype.
I've quite dramatically brought my predictions for humanoid robotics forward over the last few weeks.
For a long time I thought decent humanoid robots were something that wouldn't come until maybe the 2040s, but watching some of the content from the Chinese robot olympics recently and seeing many promising robots projects which are incorporating LLMs has made question that.
It seems quite likely that within a few years we'll have humanoid robots both which have both the dexterity and intelligence layer to start being useful in the real world... Obviously at first they'll just be lifting things and doing other trivial physical tasks like folding clothes, but every year they'll be able to do a little and a little more.
I think it's now is quite likely that within a 10 years we could have extremely competent robots which can do most of human labour. 15-20 years just seems way too long at this point.
Absolutely hilarious, we already throw 25% of our food away and have renewable energy that we are post scarcity except for a few thousand people who really like seeing big numbers on a screen
We are not post scarcity, we are just living up our future, soil erosion, freshwater depletion, fisheries collapsing, climate change making farming collapse on a continental level (European Draughts), but sure, we are so post scarcity, we don't need to worry... It will be scarcity in eh "developed world", and hell on earth for the developing world very soon.
Intensive farming must be scaled back, land restoration and renewable farming methods reinstalled, and overproduction of throwaway/junk also (food and industrial products alike). I agree with the critique of the number-line-go-up folks.
"This time last year, it was still unclear if AI could develop their own free will or even have true fluid intelligence. Both of these questions are now clearly answered."
Hardly. The second question may be answered, but clearly not the first.
And: There's going to be a shortage of everything, because all the production of physical stuff is going to go into producing robots? Are we all going to buy these robots? How are we going to do so, if everything else is getting more expensive? Are we going to buy robots instead of everything else? Why? Are the robots going to do everything we want done, so that we don't need, for example, a dishwasher and a washing machine?
Or are we still going to need the washing machine, but the robot will fold the clothes? That's nice (really!) but it's a luxury, not a need. Are they really going to sell enough of them to eat into the ability to manufacture car parts?
Do humans have free will?
If we don't it dosn't mater; if we do we do.
Yes.
That's an awfully deterministic answer. The kind of answer that always tends to come up with these free will questions which is proof enough to doubt it.
If you have a proof, please demonstrate it. Otherwise the question of the definition, much less existence, of free will is just one opinion against another and it's better to nip a tedious and fruitless philosophical conversation in the bud.
I said proof enough because sure enough the comment chains wind up like this, including your reply. Some people, as if on cue, deterministically say yes, some no, and a few like yours saying that it's all a waste of time. Which you're proving again that this sure is yet we're deterministic slaves to it. Cue 'no we're not because...', as if it's proving otherwise.
>Which you're proving again that this sure is yet we're deterministic slaves to it. Cue 'no we're not because...', as if it's proving otherwise.
Nothing at all is actually being proven either way. That's kind of the point.
Okay, let us see your homework.
what homework?
Precisely.
Precisely what? I don't see you citing any sources.
No, but you're the one who made the initial claim. Under normal debate rules, you have the burden of proof.
Yeah, I don't even have an opinion on this debate, other than it is a complex subject where people tend to have strong opinions with little to back them up.
> Hardly. The second question may be answered, but clearly not the first.
Also, the second question is answered in the negative for anyone who actually looks at what models do rather than what their makers claim they do. Models are very stupid.
Turns out we were all wrong assuming mathematicians are some of the most intelligent people. Very stupid models can prove math things that the smartest humans failed to for decades.
By far the most common modern article format I see that has literally no merit is in the format: "What if we imagine how a trend might develop in the future if the growth of that trend is never modified by changing circumstances?"
Yep, it's pretty compelling reading, what if we really do all just decide to become paperclip maximizers? What if the economy never breaks down along the way? What if what if what if... all presented as "THE FUTURE WILL BE BLEAK!" It's exhausting and thoughtless, completely devoid of value and the counterpoint is always, "You know that isn't how anything works right?"
Dystopian and depressing, but I see his point -- I never thought Trump could be elected president either.
The re-election is the real surprise for me.
G.W. Bush was wrong, you can be fooled twice.
Does anyone actually think Kamala would win? This is probably the most lopsided win for a while.
I thought Kamala would win. I guess I overestimated the discipline of the US population, or underestimated the intellectual laziness.
But I guess that's what happens when you think you've been on top for long enough.
But don't worry, now you can't get fooled again.
> re-election is the real surprise for me
It's interesting that it's a surprise to you, that such information bubbles exist.
A great sage named Bill Clinton once said, "It's the economy, stupid!".
And economic performance of the US though Trump's first term was pretty good. Crushes most of the OECD and certainly all of the large OECD countries.
Plus of course Biden/Kamala ran a terrible second campaign, with the whole covering up the fact Biden is senile thing...
But it is not the economy. Economy is an excuse, a cover. It is appeal of the feelings those ideas generate.
>And economic performance of the US though Trump's first term was pretty good.
Depends on your definition of "the economy".
The Trump administration, like many before it and much of HN, defines "the economy" as only being the performance of the asset and stock appreciation for the existing assset holders("forget the Epstein files, the DOW is over 50,000" - Pam Bondi).
While most working class people, like me and many others, define "the economy" as being how much month they have left at the end of their paycheck, after they paid for rent, bills and groceries, if they even have a job anymore and haven't been part of some mass layoff and are applying for jobs and getting rejected. For those people, "the economy" is very much NOT GOOD right now.
"The economy" amazing if you own tonnes of F500 stocks and real estate though. Not if otherwise.
Here's a chart to visualize: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?location...
My definition of the economy is the actual definition lol.
GDP per capita is not an effective measure of the economic quality of the average person though. If growth is centralised in the hands of the few, then sure per capita goes up but most peoples access to increased wealth does not.
Look at something like HDI instead, US actually down over the past ~decade:
https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/in...
The "standard of living" component of HDI is literally GNI per capita PPP (basically the same thing as GDP per capita, with a few minor adjustments).
The other components are just life expectancy and educational attainment.
The educational attainment one is interesting, all the countries at the top have free post-secondary... Does a PhD do more for the nation than an entrepreneur who creates a unicorn and hires 10k engineers?
Also life expectancy is a lagging indicator...
>Does a PhD do more for the nation than an entrepreneur who creates a unicorn and hires 10k engineers?
As someone from an EU country which has an oversupply of PhDs, says, definitely not. I'd much rather have more entrepreneurs and job opportunism than more broke PhDs with fancy degrees.
Whose "actual definition" is that? Which authority established the the "actual definition" is in the name of all of us? At the end of the day, definitions are irrelevant, what matters is majority voter perception. GDP/capita don't matter if majority of voters perceive themselves as poor.
And GDP/capita is a poor metric since it doesn't account for inequality differences of wealth accumulation. Like if your economy has a few ultra wealthy Elon Musks, Jeff Bezos, Larry Elissons, Jenson Huangs and and tens of thousands of broke homeless people, then the average GPD per capita is more than fine.
My and many other peoples' definition, is how many people can find decent paying jobs right now, and how much they can afford after paying rent and bills. They don't care about the stock market, as that's just the playground of the top 10% of asset holders(including HN), not of the majority working class.
Given the GOP doesn't even bother covering up the Trump is senile thing, perhaps the Dems could have tried the same tactic.