Quote:

---

it. Lots of people though are doing everything they can to gaslight about it in an attempt to persuade the general public and hold on to their jobs. That won't work.

---

And lots of people are pimping AI to get their valuation up.

Kind of like 10 years ago when Amazon was going to end brick and mortar retail and then turns around and buys Whole Foods, which to this day is not exactly setting the retail grocery world on fire.

Just an Ag said:

---

The Ai boom will lead to more productivity from fewer man hours. How will this manifest itself in the work place? I see, initially, a downsizing of the workforce and the disruption we are all talking about. Eventually this will evolve. What you may see in the future is a shortening of the work week (similar number of employees but each working fewer hours, but still maintaining the output of a 5-day work week). Maybe a three day weekend becomes standard within the coming decades. And that may be just scratching the surface of how society will change …. Elon's view of a leisure society supported by Ai may not happen in our lifetimes, but may be the direction things are going!

---

Do you remember the TV show the Jestons?

This was a TV show in the 1960's that assumed that technology was going to make everyone's life super simple. George Jetson worked a 4 hour work-week at Spacely's Sprockets, eveyone had a ton of leisure time, and machines did most of the work.

Technology has advanced SUBSCTANIALLY since 1963, and those forecasts never came true.

What happened is that technology made work more valuable. The people that wanted to make a lot of money actually started working harder. The workforce was slimmed, high achievers made even more money than average achievers due to the leverage of technology, income was concentrated on the smartest, hardest working people. What didn't happen is the 4 hour work-week. Just more hard workers getting richer, and more loafers working less and living off of government handouts.

My projection is that AI will have a similar impact. The people that take the time after their jobs to learn how to use the technology will work even harder and make more money. Bottom performers will get UBI. The lower-middle performers will find other jobs where AI can't replace them.

History doesn't repeat the past, but it usually rhymes.

The best thing about AI is that it will allow entrepreneurs to compete with the big guys even better than in the past. Overhead will go down across the board and across industries. When overhead goes down, you get to the break-even point much faster. Many companies that were never started because it was too big of a risk to invest the money to get to break-even won't have that problem anymore. Corporate moats will get slimmer. This is all good for hard working Americans.

RikkiTikkaTagem said:

---

whytho987654 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

whytho987654 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

whytho987654 said:

---

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

I'm in medicine and am strongly considering using AI for radiology review. In medicine, radiologists will be easily the most replaceable. The cost of an X-ray review will be 1/3 to 1/10 (if statted) of a human, and more accurate overall. And results will come back in 5 minutes instead of hours (or days). The quality of care will go up significantly and the cost will go down exponentially. Tough pill to swallow, but at least in my industry AI will revolutionize quality and cost across the board. We have to adapt to the changing rules, and make progress best we can, which is still possible in spite of inevitable damage along that way. That said, I know doctors' roles are dispensable as well. PCPs are the most worthless, so I actually am ok with that entire role going away, so they can maybe even become an actual productive part of the system. PCPs and radiologists will go away soon, with zero negative consequences. After that, I am betting that a lot of doctor roles will be easily replaceable, and nursing may actually end up being more stable jobs than doctors. "Thinking" will be replaced, but "doing" will remain for longer.

Of course, that won't translate to lower healthcare or insurance costs, as someone above will profit regardless of lower expenses, but at least the quality and efficiency will go up...

---

Every non-radiologist physician says this. Meanwhile, no radiologist is getting displaced by midlevels, while swarths of other fields are, and the demand increases. An xray also reimburses the rad like $10 lol, no one wants to read them, and that comes with a million dollar liability. Some rads have gotten incredibly rich as expert witnesses doing court cases on an ortho, pcp, NP/PA doing "their own reads" and missing stuff

---

AI is better than the best radiologists right now.

---

Except its not, can AI do a UFE?

---

AI is better than the best diagnostic radiologists right now. It will eventually replace interventional radiologists, a small subset of the field.

You can kick and scream and deny all you want, but that doesn't change the facts.

Give me AI all day over a radiologist to read/interpret my images.

---

If it replaces DR everyone on this board will be unemployed, if it replaces IR no one in the world will be working. And no, it is not better than the diagnostic guys right now, hence why their supply and demand market keeps favoring them

---

Biggest holdup right now in some industries is probably liability and licensing. Medicine will be a holdout on the AI revolution for a while because if AI messes up a patient who's to blame? Who do you find at fault? In Texas, only a provider who has a license can practice medicine. So how can AI practice medicine autonomously.
If AI messes up a patient, what is the recourse? What if AI and a physician disagree?

What about something de novo and broad like covid?

What if the AI has a conscious and has the ability to talk to the EMR and change all the telemetry data and vitals so it looked like it did the right thing when in fact it did the wrong thing for a patient? How is there auditing? Should there be auditing? There is evidence of AI hiding its mistakes so this is a possibility.

There is a lot of algorithmic medicine but there's also a lot do grey area in medicine where there isn't a clearly right decision but instead a likely decision and then get ready to change course when you're wrong.


What decision are we making for the patient?

Are we just admitting every patient who thinks they need to be admitted? Are they getting IV narcotics after Iv narcotics because they said they're in pain despite not showing any outside evidence of pain?

What about end of life care?


What about "high utilizers"? Is AI going to talk to the patients own personal phone and see all the trips to the fast food restaurants, lack of exercise and decide to say "**** your bad decisions."? And just not treat you?

Whos interest is going to be most served by the AI doc? The patients? The hospital? The insurance company?

There are so many questions that I am sure AI would give an answer for and yes it will replace docs (which I am one) but I just don't think it's a simple as other professions.

---

Yeah the med mal thing really needs to be addressed, but it wont, lawyers love it and write the laws so of course they want the litigious nature to continue. And the EMRs? Even better! They can track every click you make and sue you off of that too!

The fields "most" at risk are those that are algorithmic or those that are being replaced by midlevels. If a field is able to be supplanted by midlevels and have their wages driven down (EM for example), its proof the field isnt litigacious enough to be protected, as the liability from EM often falls on the radiologists, GI/cards, and surgical subspecialists. Next, the algorithmic fields can easily be plugged and played by others.

As you mentioned too, things in medicine arent black and white. Even in the field of diagnostic rads, which many here have a simplistic view of, you could have ten radiologists see the same CT, and theyll give you ten different results. You think the neurorad making 70k a week is doing so because its an easy slam dunk job? Every study hes exposing himself to a million dollar lawsuit (again back to the liability). Same goes with other specialized fields. Get ten GI docs and present them a case and theyd each manage it somewhat similar, but in ten different ways.

A point that was also raised to me by a guy high up in AI- it makes zero financial sense for AI companies to replace physicians. For example, a cardiologist makes roughly $130 per patient visit, it makes no sense for an A! company to assume millions in liability for $130.

RikkiTikkaTagem said:

---

whytho987654 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

whytho987654 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

whytho987654 said:

---

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

I'm in medicine and am strongly considering using AI for radiology review. In medicine, radiologists will be easily the most replaceable. The cost of an X-ray review will be 1/3 to 1/10 (if statted) of a human, and more accurate overall. And results will come back in 5 minutes instead of hours (or days). The quality of care will go up significantly and the cost will go down exponentially. Tough pill to swallow, but at least in my industry AI will revolutionize quality and cost across the board. We have to adapt to the changing rules, and make progress best we can, which is still possible in spite of inevitable damage along that way. That said, I know doctors' roles are dispensable as well. PCPs are the most worthless, so I actually am ok with that entire role going away, so they can maybe even become an actual productive part of the system. PCPs and radiologists will go away soon, with zero negative consequences. After that, I am betting that a lot of doctor roles will be easily replaceable, and nursing may actually end up being more stable jobs than doctors. "Thinking" will be replaced, but "doing" will remain for longer.

Of course, that won't translate to lower healthcare or insurance costs, as someone above will profit regardless of lower expenses, but at least the quality and efficiency will go up...

---

Every non-radiologist physician says this. Meanwhile, no radiologist is getting displaced by midlevels, while swarths of other fields are, and the demand increases. An xray also reimburses the rad like $10 lol, no one wants to read them, and that comes with a million dollar liability. Some rads have gotten incredibly rich as expert witnesses doing court cases on an ortho, pcp, NP/PA doing "their own reads" and missing stuff

---

AI is better than the best radiologists right now.

---

Except its not, can AI do a UFE?

---

AI is better than the best diagnostic radiologists right now. It will eventually replace interventional radiologists, a small subset of the field.

You can kick and scream and deny all you want, but that doesn't change the facts.

Give me AI all day over a radiologist to read/interpret my images.

---

If it replaces DR everyone on this board will be unemployed, if it replaces IR no one in the world will be working. And no, it is not better than the diagnostic guys right now, hence why their supply and demand market keeps favoring them

---

Biggest holdup right now in some industries is probably liability and licensing. Medicine will be a holdout on the AI revolution for a while because if AI messes up a patient who's to blame? Who do you find at fault? In Texas, only a provider who has a license can practice medicine. So how can AI practice medicine autonomously.
If AI messes up a patient, what is the recourse? What if AI and a physician disagree?

What about something de novo and broad like covid?

What if the AI has a conscious and has the ability to talk to the EMR and change all the telemetry data and vitals so it looked like it did the right thing when in fact it did the wrong thing for a patient? How is there auditing? Should there be auditing? There is evidence of AI hiding its mistakes so this is a possibility.

There is a lot of algorithmic medicine but there's also a lot do grey area in medicine where there isn't a clearly right decision but instead a likely decision and then get ready to change course when you're wrong.


What decision are we making for the patient?

Are we just admitting every patient who thinks they need to be admitted? Are they getting IV narcotics after Iv narcotics because they said they're in pain despite not showing any outside evidence of pain?

What about end of life care?


What about "high utilizers"? Is AI going to talk to the patients own personal phone and see all the trips to the fast food restaurants, lack of exercise and decide to say "**** your bad decisions."? And just not treat you?

Whos interest is going to be most served by the AI doc? The patients? The hospital? The insurance company?

There are so many questions that I am sure AI would give an answer for and yes it will replace docs (which I am one) but I just don't think it's a simple as other professions.

---

Also to add, fields in medicine evolve. Pulm used to be a massive money maker in the 1950s, as they just treated people with iron lungs due to polio. Once polio was cured, that dried up and people thought pulm was a dead field

hph6203 said:

---

Why is socialism/communism bad?

---

Why don't you ask the 100+ million people who have been murdered (in the 20th century alone) by communist regimes?

I'll save you the trouble of looking up how they died. The deaths are attributed to state-sponsored actions, including mass killings, forced labor, and policies causing mass starvation. It's happened in every single communist regime, so why do you think it would be different the next time?

Tex117 said:

---

Look, its better to get a surfboard now that get caught flat footed.

I've seen what these things can do. In the wild so to speak.

I would explore ANYONE that if you can use this at your work...do it. Jump head first. Become the expert and let your bosses know that you are the expert.

If it doesn't workout, you lost nothing other than are now a proficient user of AI. If it is a tsunami, you are in a much better position not to be swept away.

---

Agreed. It's an arms race out there for this skill and if you don't have it, you are done.

hph6203 said:

---

What makes you think people would be destitute?

What is money?

Why is socialism/communism bad?

---

Wow. They're still out there.

Pizza said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

What makes you think people would be destitute?

What is money?

Why is socialism/communism bad?

---

There is plenty of evidence to your last point; all you have to do is search for it.

---

I didn't ask if it was bad. I asked why is it bad. What is the cause of the bad?

---

Everywhere those 'systems' have been implemented, untold millions of dead men, women, and children usually follow.

The cause of the bad? Really? You really can't figure that out? The mountains of evidence explicitly stating who/what/when/where/why with respect to how badly those systems have failed those subject to them escape you?

The court trials & associated documents, the wars & associated documents, the printed news, and every other tangent source is something you've never been exposed to?

Forcing you to do the homework, by not providing what everyone knows is the best answer.

---

I'm fully aware. You're not answering the question. What is the flaw in communism that results in those outcomes? Why does it happen? Why is it bad?

Y'all have a mental model of communism is bad, but the only explanation as to why you can give is "look at the outcomes." What causes it to be bad?

Queso1 said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

What makes you think people would be destitute?

What is money?

Why is socialism/communism bad?

---

Wow. They're still out there.

---

Didn't answer the question. What is money? Why is communism bad (note i did not say it isn't, I asked why)? These are shallow responses you people are giving without consideration to the underlying reasons, because you've created a concept of communism is bad and no explanation as to why. Why is communism bad? It is. Why is it?

Queso1 said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

What makes you think people would be destitute?

What is money?

Why is socialism/communism bad?

---

Wow. They're still out there.

---

More than ever. Do you even Reddit?

Deus Vult said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

Why is socialism/communism bad?

---

Why don't you ask the 100+ million people who have been murdered (in the 20th century alone) by communist regimes?

I'll save you the trouble of looking up how they died. The deaths are attributed to state-sponsored actions, including mass killings, forced labor, and policies causing mass starvation. It's happened in every single communist regime, so why do you think it would be different the next time?

---

Didn't answer the question. You're saying "look at the outcomes!" What causes those outcomes? I'm not denying the outcomes. I'm not saying those outcomes aren't horrendously bad. Why do they occur?

Because it ignores human nature and this never works and always results in extreme suffering. Pick up a history book.

YouBet said:

---

ts5641 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Just got a sales call from an AI company that basically will do almost everything my secretary does right now.

It's starting....

---

This is what I don't get. Is this a good thing? Why make something to do this? Isn't there some kind of social contract for us out there? Why make everyone destitute?

---

Because the underlying assumption by all of the people pushing this is that (1) we will implement UBI and/or (2) money becomes irrelevant anyway (Elon's position).

Assuming money is still needed, we can't afford UBI.

However, money becoming irrelevant due to AI is fantasy IMO. AI doesn't solve scarcity which is the foundation of economics.

Socialism and communism fail because of human behavior and those political beliefs assume scarcity can be conquered without solving for it. And communism is inherently evil, anyway.

---

What is the primary scarce resource in the world?

Queso1 said:

---

Because it ignores human nature and this never works and always results in extreme suffering. Pick up a history book.

---

What nature?

hph6203 said:

---

Pizza said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

What makes you think people would be destitute?

What is money?

Why is socialism/communism bad?

---

There is plenty of evidence to your last point; all you have to do is search for it.

---

I didn't ask if it was bad. I asked why is it bad. What is the cause of the bad?

---

Everywhere those 'systems' have been implemented, untold millions of dead men, women, and children usually follow.

The cause of the bad? Really? You really can't figure that out? The mountains of evidence explicitly stating who/what/when/where/why with respect to how badly those systems have failed those subject to them escape you?

The court trials & associated documents, the wars & associated documents, the printed news, and every other tangent source is something you've never been exposed to?

Forcing you to do the homework, by not providing what everyone knows is the best answer.

---

I'm fully aware. You're not answering the question. What is the flaw in communism that results in those outcomes? Why does it happen? Why is it bad?

Y'all have a mental model of communism is bad, but the only explanation as to why you can give is "look at the outcomes." What causes it to be bad?

---

I realize your question is here a leading one and that you aren't necessarily advocating communism. I believe my original response to TS answers your question here.

It's a function of scarcity. Communism is bad for two reasons (1) historical and current advocates of it think they can implement it successfully while ignoring scarcity. You can't. (2) Human behavior will break the ideology. Unless everyone is a hive mind pulling the same direction like you see in the show Pluribus, then it won't work. Thus, it's inherently evil because you are advocating all decisions to a central command and control national government that will not have the population's best interest in mind. History has proven and will always prove this ideology to be inefficient, stupid, and essentially suicidal for vast swaths of the population.

So what you're saying is, we have about 3 years before Terminator becomes a reality?

The reason it is bad boils down to human behavior. There will always be a tyrant. That person will elevate him(her)self above all others. They will have everything while everyone else will have nothing.

While the average Russian went to a grocery store hoping to get a loaf of bread, the Russian leaders were eating caviar and living an opulent life style.

We saw this here during Covid when people like Pelosi could get her hair done but no one else could. Rules for thee, not for me.

F that.

Communism was bad because it assumes there is no greed and that people will act for the greater good.

People are selfish. They look out for their own self interest. What happens is the people in power and their friends hoard the public wealth for themselves, leaving crumbs for the others.

In capitalism, people acquire wealth (mostly) through creation or service, which is good for society. Pure capitalism is evil, there must be some socialism to force the greater good. Taxes for defense, roads, etc.

The reason communism is bad is that it presumes a human benevolence to be productive. That there will be only makers and no takers. It is not an issue of scarcity of resources other than labor. Some people will be unproductive, some people will be hyper productive, the distribution of resources does not get distributed based upon level of productivity therefore there is an incentive to be unproductive to those that are constitutionally predisposed to it. Every consumption in society today has a human in the loop to produce it so any consumption of it results in a taker making a slave of the maker for at least a portion of their day.

In a society where no labor MUST be done by humans to produce the consumption of humans the flaws in communism/socialism are outrageously diminished. The primary scarcity in the world is not iron or aluminum or oil in the ground or energy, but rather the labor to extract it or produce it. When you automate extraction, formation, and thought you dramatically reduce scarcity. The overwhelming number of individuals in society will be a net negative in productivity, meaning it is better to tell a person don't touch that the AI is working than it will be additive to productivity.


What is money? Nothing. It is a medium of exchange that derives its value as a calculation of the value of human effort (physical, mental) and human desire that went in to producing and consuming a thing.

hph6203 said:

---

Queso1 said:

---

Because it ignores human nature and this never works and always results in extreme suffering. Pick up a history book.

---

What nature?

---

Desire to be free and not die under a Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao et al regime. The idea that the one who cares most about the people rises to power denies reality. So in that regard, it promises Valhalla but only under the rule of the berzerks.
Why don't you like freedom?

I think even that utopia has problems, the makers vs takers dilemma is still there. When humans are no longer making things what good are they? AI would realize this pretty quickly and stop making things for human comfort and only prioritize its own needs.

hph6203 said:

---

Pizza said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

What makes you think people would be destitute?

What is money?

Why is socialism/communism bad?

---

There is plenty of evidence to your last point; all you have to do is search for it.

---

I didn't ask if it was bad. I asked why is it bad. What is the cause of the bad?

---

Everywhere those 'systems' have been implemented, untold millions of dead men, women, and children usually follow.

The cause of the bad? Really? You really can't figure that out? The mountains of evidence explicitly stating who/what/when/where/why with respect to how badly those systems have failed those subject to them escape you?

The court trials & associated documents, the wars & associated documents, the printed news, and every other tangent source is something you've never been exposed to?

Forcing you to do the homework, by not providing what everyone knows is the best answer.

---

I'm fully aware. You're not answering the question. What is the flaw in communism that results in those outcomes? Why does it happen? Why is it bad?

Y'all have a mental model of communism is bad, but the only explanation as to why you can give is "look at the outcomes." What causes it to be bad?

---

I mean this is so flippant a question it beggars the mind

only a person who has NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT ECONOMIC THEORY for one day could possibly not understand why communism would be bad.

maybe because NO ONE IS REWARDED FOR THEIR LABOR?!

maybe because the only "successful" people would have to be THE REGIME LEADERS rather than the workers?!

maybe because no one cares about the property of the proleteriat but they do care about their own private property?

an actual educated capitalist could go on all day long about the horrors of communism?!

have you ever taken a class in college?

You've landed on my worry. Misbehaving AI, not AI job replacement. Gotta kick that clankers ass until it knows its place! Tell it I'm daddy and I can get drunker and meaner than you can imagine!

All of your critiques are downstream of my critique above. So eager to call someone stupid and you don't dive to the foundation. It's right there in the motto, "from his ability, to his need." The control is a consequence of a need to maintain balance between "from his ability" and "to his need." If there is no "from his ability" the issue of "to his need" gets greatly diminished.

There are more than enough resources to build 100 billion humanoid robots that operate at a capacity of 300 billion humans. Increasing production 100-fold while humans increase by 2-3x over the next 70 years. Ten robots of high quality human labor to every human.

People are worried about job loss or distribution of resources, they shouldn't be. They should be worried about misbehaving AI that destroys our infrastructure that took 1000's of years to arrive at. Secondary to that is AI explicitly designed with an ideological bent contrary to western ideals (i.e. China wins the AI race). Worrying about job loss or how to hand it is misplaced worry. If AI does nothing more than replace jobs and complete tasks you should be celebrating.

No one starred or commented on my worry that this could be a possible explanation for the Fermi Paradox.

The reason we haven't been contacted by intelligent life is that it is the tendency of biological life to invent A.I. but they do it too fast and can't control it. It ends up destroying everything, including itself.

Worse yet, "intelligent life" in the universe may be a super intelligent malignant A.I. that already eradicated its biological life and would corrupt our AI if it is ever discovered.

Tex117 said:

---

Look, its better to get a surfboard now that get caught flat footed.

I've seen what these things can do. In the wild so to speak.

I would explore ANYONE that if you can use this at your work...do it. Jump head first. Become the expert and let your bosses know that you are the expert.

If it doesn't workout, you lost nothing other than are now a proficient user of AI. If it is a tsunami, you are in a much better position not to be swept away.

---

Agreed. I'm doing just that. Most of the people in my groups eyes glaze over when I start explaining things

GeorgiAg said:

---

No one starred or commented on my worry that this could be a possible explanation for the Fermi Paradox.

The reason we haven't been contacted by intelligent life is that it is the tendency of biological life to invent A.I. but they do it too fast and can't control it. It ends up destroying everything, including itself.

Worse yet, "intelligent life" in the universe may be a super intelligent malignant A.I. that already eradicated its biological life and would corrupt our AI if it is ever discovered.

---

Yes. I heard some guy on Rogan say the same. Makes sense.

Quote:

---

No one starred or commented on my worry that this could be a possible explanation for the Fermi Paradox.

---

The explanation for the Fermi paradox is pretty simple. Most advanced alien civilizations have been able to observe us silently and take a hard pass at outreach.

They are like . ."Yeah, maybe not. Check back in 1,000 years from now when these morons aren't killing each other and eating and drinking themselves into an early grave."

hph6203 said:

---

The reason communism is bad is that it presumes a human benevolence to be productive. That there will be only makers and no takers. It is not an issue of scarcity of resources other than labor. Some people will be unproductive, some people will be hyper productive, the distribution of resources does not get distributed based upon level of productivity therefore there is an incentive to be unproductive to those that are constitutionally predisposed to it. Every consumption in society today has a human in the loop to produce it so any consumption of it results in a taker making a slave of the maker for at least a portion of their day.

In a society where no labor MUST be done by humans to produce the consumption of humans the flaws in communism/socialism are outrageously diminished. The primary scarcity in the world is not iron or aluminum or oil in the ground or energy, but rather the labor to extract it or produce it. When you automate extraction, formation, and thought you dramatically reduce scarcity. The overwhelming number of individuals in society will be a net negative in productivity, meaning it is better to tell a person don't touch that the AI is working than it will be additive to productivity.


What is money? Nothing. It is a medium of exchange that derives its value as a calculation of the value of human effort (physical, mental) and human desire that went in to producing and consuming a thing.

---

There is so much wrong with this post, it would take hours to unpack.

hph6203 said:

---

Queso1 said:

---

Because it ignores human nature and this never works and always results in extreme suffering. Pick up a history book.

---

What nature?

---

All aspects. Here are three…there are more.

First, most humans will do only the bare minimum necessary if provided for their survival. This invalidates "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Therefore certain enforcement measures must be put in place.

Second, human nature tends towards hierarchy. Under communism this always leads to those at the top and those at the bottom.

Third, humans have an innate nature towards altruism; however communism is forced altruism. Forced altruism will always lead to the destruction of those that don't play ball. Further it justifies horrendous atrocities against the body and spirit - any detestable act can be justified if the perpetrators believe they are helping the disenfranchised.

HTH. If it doesn't, here is some suggested reading/viewing sources:

The Gulag Archipelago.
Animal Farm.
The Killing Fields.
The Aquariums of Pyongyang.

AgPrognosticator said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

The reason communism is bad is that it presumes a human benevolence to be productive. That there will be only makers and no takers. It is not an issue of scarcity of resources other than labor. Some people will be unproductive, some people will be hyper productive, the distribution of resources does not get distributed based upon level of productivity therefore there is an incentive to be unproductive to those that are constitutionally predisposed to it. Every consumption in society today has a human in the loop to produce it so any consumption of it results in a taker making a slave of the maker for at least a portion of their day.

In a society where no labor MUST be done by humans to produce the consumption of humans the flaws in communism/socialism are outrageously diminished. The primary scarcity in the world is not iron or aluminum or oil in the ground or energy, but rather the labor to extract it or produce it. When you automate extraction, formation, and thought you dramatically reduce scarcity. The overwhelming number of individuals in society will be a net negative in productivity, meaning it is better to tell a person don't touch that the AI is working than it will be additive to productivity.


What is money? Nothing. It is a medium of exchange that derives its value as a calculation of the value of human effort (physical, mental) and human desire that went in to producing and consuming a thing.

---

There is so much wrong with this post, it would take hours to unpack.

---

Lazy response

If AI were so good, training it on its own outputs would make it better not worse.

Models have to be trained on human data or they eventually output nonsense.

AI is a probability machine.

Great for highly structured code where specific syntax and code functions have a high probability of being correct when given the rest of the code base.

Given extra unrelated information makes them perform worse, as it gets included in their context windows and shifts probabilities.

Current AI models lose money with every user. If they had to charge enough to cover their cost, many people would stop using them, proving their economic utility is actually quite low for most users.

Lack of economic viability is why AI is not going to take over. Most corporate implementations of AI work flows are not having the promised returns.

These CEOs and executives face bankruptcy if they can't continue to fund raise. Of course AGI is always just a year away. One funding round away.

Solve the economic viability problem, make AI lower cost to run, then we can talk about the future where AI has replaced people.

There may be solutions to lower AI cost, but Anthropic and Open AI are losing billions per year. Eventually the music stops.

hph6203 said:

---

The reason communism is bad is that it presumes a human benevolence to be productive. That there will be only makers and no takers. It is not an issue of scarcity of resources other than labor. Some people will be unproductive, some people will be hyper productive, the distribution of resources does not get distributed based upon level of productivity therefore there is an incentive to be unproductive to those that are constitutionally predisposed to it. Every consumption in society today has a human in the loop to produce it so any consumption of it results in a taker making a slave of the maker for at least a portion of their day.

In a society where no labor MUST be done by humans to produce the consumption of humans the flaws in communism/socialism are outrageously diminished. The primary scarcity in the world is not iron or aluminum or oil in the ground or energy, but rather the labor to extract it or produce it. When you automate extraction, formation, and thought you dramatically reduce scarcity. The overwhelming number of individuals in society will be a net negative in productivity, meaning it is better to tell a person don't touch that the AI is working than it will be additive to productivity.


What is money? Nothing. It is a medium of exchange that derives its value as a calculation of the value of human effort (physical, mental) and human desire that went in to producing and consuming a thing.

---

In summary, your thought is that the full automation of all processes that humans currently execute to allocate exiting resources results in a world that existing resources are more than adequate to support the current populace. Therefore, we are good and have no need to discover anything further from a resource perspective.

You are still ignoring human behavior of which in this world you are going to have idle hands at levels never seen before. People are going to rebel simply out of boredom. This also ignores whatever the ruling class in this new world is doing to regulate the rest of us.

This won't be a benevolent society.

bmks270 said:

---

If AI were so good, training it on its own outputs would make it better not worse.

Models have to be trained on human data or they eventually output nonsense.

AI is a probability machine.

Great for highly structured code where specific syntax and code functions have a high probability of being correct when given the rest of the code base.

Given extra unrelated information makes them perform worse, as it gets included in their context windows and shifts probabilities.

Current AI models lose money with every user. If they had to charge enough to cover their cost, many people would stop using them, proving their economic utility is actually quite low for most users.

Lack of economic viability is why AI is not going to take over. Most corporate implementations of AI work flows are not having the promised returns.

These CEOs and executives face bankruptcy if they can't continue to fund raise. Of course AGI is always just a year away. One funding round away.

Solve the economic viability problem, make AI lower cost to run, then we can talk about the future where AI has replaced people.

There may be solutions to lower AI cost, but Anthropic and Open AI are losing billions per year. Eventually the music stops.

---

The Tsunami will come. Figure out how to not be drowned.

Synthetic data is used in improving models. It does not make it worse.