So, a capitalism driven cataclysm, not an AI driven one. When your economic model fails because of technological advancement, you blame the model, not the technology.
"There's a fair likelihood that if we don't do a course correction, we're going to have a truly two-tier system," Acemoglu told me. "A small number of people are going to be on top — they're going to design and use those technologies — and a very large number of people will only have marginal jobs, or not very meaningful jobs."
So one group owns the systems that produce the output, while the other gets exploited by said systems.
tl;dr politicians aren’t willing to stick their neck out to give NASA the funding, and they tend to axe whatever programs their predecessor from the opposing party started. petty humans and their stupid money.
Not that I doubt AI spending will go way up in the coming years, but I doubt extrapolating data 10 years forward is very accurate. We don't even know how the market will be two years from now with how quickly everything is moving in the AI space.
but I doubt extrapolating data 10 years forward is very accurate.
As someone who used to get paid to make such predictions/estimates, I assume the person... read widely on the current market and investigated several of the leading AI players.
Then decided how quickly the line should go up and added the appropriate numbers.
People still had jobs after the industrial revolution. We'll still have jobs after the AI revolution. They may be different jobs in some cases, but there will still be a need for direct human interaction for a long time to come.
We are awful with human to human communication and AI hasn't helped with that. We need the technology (or straight up common sense) to get humans to listen to and watch other animals, more than talk. (Yes, I'm being nitpicky about the headline.)
Let alone beings which use smells to communicate. That one I'll need a lot of help with. My sense of smell is awful just in comparison to other human beings.
It took scientists forever to say animals might have feelings. Meanwhile, anyone who has spent any time with animals already knows this.
Megawatt is not a unit for battery storage (watt is power, watthour is energy). Did the author just fail at the most basic level or do they actually mean megawatt in terms of maximum power output and phrased it wrong with storage? Who knows, that’s the fun.
Firstly, is this guy an in any way qualified to talk about AI? If not, I don’t see why we should trust him about it; he’s just one of the many self-proclaimed experts really knowing nothing about the topic. A few things I think are relevant here:
AI could only potentially replace cognitive jobs.
“AI” like ChatGPT is only ruminating on its training data, so it cannot drive innovation, only do jobs where information is already available.
As with all innovation making human work obsolete, it is only really a bad thing if we allow its benefits to be unevenly distributed.
which is still only true for a small proportion of the human population. If anything unevenly distributed applies more today than at anytime in human history.
Just ask the child who harvests your cocco beans but has never eaten chocolate.
Or the Child who mines lithium but will never own a smart phone, or shoes.
Futurology
Hot