> So my conclusion is that AI will reduce the number of jobs, but it will not eliminate the need for people
taps the sign: "The economy is there to provide for all the people. People are not there to be economically productive"
taps the sign: "The economy is there to provide for all the people. People are not there to be economically productive"
And thinking about it, I'm not sure the answer to your question is obvious. I'm in a 2-person startup. We're not planning on recruiting any more as we grow, because we've automated all of it with LLMs. You can see this as a loss for humans because less jobs, or you can see this as a win for humans, because two humans can do what it used to take a corporation to do.
1. OpenAI/Anthropic and their friends in high academia are like Ford. Their supervisees (2nd class citizens of the Borg, if not what you mean by "the people") can afford to validate frontiers. Detractors may wish for something like Fordlandia to happen (ie the climate becoming an "unforeseen" but critical issue).
2.
>The claim that universities can simply choose important problems that are cheap to validate is also more difficult than it sounds.
This sounds like a polarization of the mathematician electorate. oAI/Anthropic becoming the far right. Most-famous and Nonfamous academics alike join the other side (decentralizers). Barely second tier academics (Witten, Gowers, Hairer for some strange reason) become alt-right. Centrists migrate to silicon valley en masse, only indirectly complicit with the far right in a role of "cognitive swing(vot)ing"
We're in for a world of Trickle-down Sapience!
In the other, non-hacker news, math-Mamdani becomes vice-chancellor of Oxford, purges PPE ("campaign donations" from Gerko?). BRCS silently become net-token-exporters. Token rates in India/Japan/Korea exceed even Canada