undefined | Better HN

0 pointspojzon1y ago0 comments

Why?

There will be a dedicated cast of ppl to take care of machines that do 90% of work and „the rich”.

Anyone else is not needed. District9 but for ppl. Imagine whole world collapsing like Venesuela.

You are no longer needed. Best option is to learn how to survive and grow own food, but they want to make it illegal also - look at EU..

0 comments

fipar1y ago

The machines will plant, grow, and harvest the food? Do the plumbing? Fix the wiring? Open heart surgery?

We’re a long way from that, if we ever get there, and I say this as someone who pays for ChatGPT plus because, in some scenarios, it does indeed make me more productive, but I don’t see your future anywhere near.

And if machines ever get good enough to do all the things I mentioned plus the ones I didn’t but would fit in the same list, it’s not the ultra rich that wouldn’t need us, it’s the machines that wouldn’t need any of us, including the ultra rich.

Venezuela is not collapsing because of automation.

dyauspitr1y ago

You have valid points but robots already plant, grow and harvest our food. On large farms the farmer basically just gets the machine to a corner of the field and then it does everything. I think if o3 level reasoning can carry over into control software for robots even physical tasks become pretty accessible. I would definitely say we’re not there yet but we’re not all that far. I mean it can generate GCode (somewhat) already, that’s a lot of the way there already.

cute_boi1y ago

I can't say everything, but with the current trend, Machine will plant, grow and harvest food. I can't say for open heart surgery because it may be regulated heavily.

matheusmoreira1y ago

Open heart surgery? All that's needed to destroy the entire medical profession is one peer reviewed article published in a notable journal comparing the outcomes of human and AI surgeons. If it turns out that AI surgeons offer better outcomes and less complications, not using this technology turns into criminal negligence. In a world where such a fact is known, letting human surgeons operate on people means you are needlessly harming or killing some of them.

You can even calculate the average number of people that can be operated on before harm occurs: number needed to harm (NNH). If NNH(AI) > NNH(humans), it becomes impossible to recommend that patients submit to surgery at the hands of human surgeons. It is that simple.

If we discover that AI surgeons harm one in every 1000 patients while human surgeons harm one in every 100 patients, human surgeons are done.

EA-31671y ago

"IF"

And the opposite holds, if the AI surgeon is worse (great for 80%, but sucks at the edge cases for example) then that's it. Build a better one, go through attempts at certification, but now with the burden that no one trusts you.

The assumption, and a common one by the look of this whole thread, that ChatGPT, Sora and the rest represent the beginning of an inevitable march towards AGI seems incredible baseless to me. It's only really possible to make the claim at all because we know so little about what AGI is, that we can project qualities we imagine it would have onto whatever we have now.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse