RivieraKid

6 ms·

1.
by RivieraKid 4d ago
Well this is what I was hinting at in my original comment. The main determinant of how people feel about AI is whether it threatens their source of income because at the end of the day, that's far more important than everything else. S
2.
by RivieraKid 4d ago
Well what I'm worried about is that as AI gets better, everyone will be able to use AI to produce things. Just describe the product, or just point to an existing product, and that's it. In other words, AI could became better than
3.
by RivieraKid 4d ago
And will your life get meaningfully worse if AI replaces developers?
4.
by RivieraKid 4d ago
There are generally two major reasons why programmers don't like what's happening. One is about jobs and money, the other is about craft, meaning, enjoyment. Somewhere in the middle is social status and perceived value of intellig
5.
by RivieraKid 5d ago
What's your job or source of income? This is the main factor behind how you feel about AI.
6.
by RivieraKid 6d ago
I'm talking about games that start from the initial position.
7.
by RivieraKid 6d ago
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that a few years old version of Stockfish running on a modern MacBook Air with 1 min per move is unbeatable if the game starts from the initial position. Even if the opponent is the latest Stockfish
8.
by RivieraKid 7d ago
For some reason, what China is doing seems worse. Part of it is that I want the US to stay ahead of China.
9.
by RivieraKid 8d ago
Is this useful in any way?
10.
by RivieraKid 11d ago
I'm starting to think that a ChatGPT moment for robotics would require abandoning the current brute force approach to artificial intelligence. ChatGPT's trick was simply more data and compute. A stochastic parrot will eventually b
11.
by RivieraKid 11d ago
It's because existing models are a brute-force approach to intelligence. With enough data and compute, a stochastic parrot will become very impressive. But with robotics, there's no pre-made dataset that can be parroted. Notice th
12.
by RivieraKid 15d ago
A homeless person usually isn't able to learn what is needed to become a neurosurgeon. So the issue isn't that we don't have enough highly paid jobs - it's that we don't have enough people able to do those jobs. Whi
13.
by RivieraKid 15d ago
Yeah, makes sense that this would be part of the reason. But the question is whether a 4 day week is the right solution.
14.
by RivieraKid 15d ago
In basic economic theory, high wages mean that there's insufficient supply. So I wonder why don't the "truly unemployed" people learn whatever the market rewards and compete with the highly paid workers. If it is because
15.
by RivieraKid 19d ago
That assumes monopoly status of the AI companies and no regulation. No one would need me in the hypothetical case where I own a construction company. I would just own the company and collect profits.
16.
by RivieraKid 19d ago
Solar + battery is very land inefficient, that's basically the main argument. Edit: Per ChatGPT's calculation, nuclear is significantly cheaper than solar + battery in my country (Czech Republic) if we're talking about adding
17.
by RivieraKid 20d ago
Me saying that humanoid robots won't replace nurses within the next 2 decades is sad? Doesn't make any sense.
18.
by RivieraKid 20d ago
Companies offering AI will capture just a tiny slice of the value created by AI. So the tax would generate negligible revenue. I think humanoids capable of replacing a nurse for example are 20+ years away. But I could be wrong and hope I a
19.
by RivieraKid 21d ago
If you really simplify how this works: Owners of capital use the capital in combination with workers to produces goods and services. They give half of the production to the workers and keep the other half. If AI replaces workers, the owners
20.
by RivieraKid 21d ago
But it's impossible to measure how does a company or a person benefit from AI. The economy is a complex system. A construction company may benefit more than a robot-making company. The right approach could be to raise the general tax l
21.
by RivieraKid 22d ago
At that point AI will be significantly more advanced than today.
22.
by RivieraKid 24d ago
I'm making about $260 monthly playing play money poker, adjusted for price level it's like $400 in the US. I sell the virtual chips I make to other people. My side project is automating this and scaling 2x.
23.
by RivieraKid 27d ago
One of the threads like this one has prompted me to start reading the book Molecular Biology of the Cell several years ago. I need to get back to it.
24.
by RivieraKid 1mo ago
I'm not that young anymore but when I hear Dario Amodei speak and gesticulate enthusiastically about how AI will soon make my job redundant, from a positio of someone who can retire now and who benefits from AI possibly replacing worke
25.
by RivieraKid 1mo ago
The cookie thing, I assume it's EU-only, is an example of the EU policy making process being fundamentally broken in some way. If you create a flawed policy and don't fix it many years after it's very visibly obvious that it&
26.
by RivieraKid 1mo ago
What about it is BS? I don't see any issue with leasing things if it does make me happier.
27.
by RivieraKid 1mo ago
Pension systems don't have a huge effect on the incentive to work. They have some effect but not enough to collapse the system. But we could possibly see a collapse in the future in a country like Italy. By the way, I support some leve
28.
by RivieraKid 1mo ago
Free public services are similar to UBI but have little effect on the incentive to work because they don't provide all of the basic needs.
29.
by RivieraKid 1mo ago
AI is just a technology, nothing fundamentally different from what has been happening for centuries. Once AI is able to replace all human work, that's a new situation. But this is not happening in the next 20+ years.
30.
by RivieraKid 1mo ago
I didn't imply that this is how I define UBI. Look at the exact wording I used.

More ›