Hacker News Reader

Comment by typewithrhythm | Hacker News Reader

It's not a resource problem; everyone inside the system has no real incentive to do anything innovative; improving something incrementally is more likely to be seen as extra work by your colleagues and be detrimental to the person who implemented it.

What's more likely is a significantly better system is introduced somewhere, NHS can't keep up and is rebuilt by an external. (Or more likely it becomes a inferior system of a lesser nation as the UK continues its decline).

View on HN

I think this is where the AGI employee succeeds where other automation doesn’t. The AGI employee doesn’t require the organization to change. It’s an agent that functions like a regular employee in the same exact system with all of its inefficiencies, except that it can do way more inefficient work for a fraction of the cost of a human.

Assuming we get to AGI and companies are willing to employ them in lieu of a human employee, why would they stop at only replacing small pieces of the org rather than replacing it entirely with AGI?

AGI, by most definitions at least, would be better than most people at most things. Especially if you take OpenAI's definition, which boils it down only to economic value, a company would seemingly always be better off replacing everything with AGI.

Maybe more likely. AGI would just create superior businesses from scratch and put human companies out if business.

Extrapolating this, I cannot help but imagine a dystopian universe in which humans' reason for existence is to be some uber AI's pets.

This is a huge selling point, and it will really differentiate the orgs that adopt it from those who don’t. Eventually the whole organization will become as inscrutable as the agents that operate it. From the executive point of view this is indistinguishable from having human knowledge workers. It’s going to be interesting to see what happens to an organization like that when it faces disruptive threats that require rapid changes to its operating model. Many human orgs fall apart faced by this kind of challenge. How will an extra jumbo pattern matcher do?

Don't forget that the executive is also a (human) employee. If AGI is working so well, why would the major stakeholders need a human CEO?

What you are describing is science fiction and is not worthy of serious discussion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com