Regarding applications for robots that have to move very precisely without carrying a load, there are robotic measurement systems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinate-measuring_machine
70 karma · joined June 18, 2017
Which, to me, makes sense. Once the underlying technology exists, a malicious actor would not think twice before developing tools of deceptionlike those. It makes sense that OpenAI would work on that "in the open" to demonstrate that we now need to be skeptical of audios.
LLM models are pretty general in their capabilities, so it is not like the relatively slow process of electrification, when lamplighters lost their jobs. Everyone can lose their jobs in a matter of months because AI can do close to everything.
I am excited to live in a world where AI has "freed" humans from wage slavery, but our economic system is not ready to deal with that yet.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws#Law_for_the_Pro...
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7280877/why-and-how-does...
Temperature is not what burns you, it's heat flow that does the burning. A boiling pot has a lot of molecules densely packed together, so heat transfer happens fast. The air inside the oven is hot but will not be as effective in transferring heat to your hand. There is more "thermal resistance" between your hand and the air inside the oven than your hand and the water inside a boiling pot.
That's a very strong statement. If you unpack it a little bit, what you are saying is there is absolutely nothing productive ("better") that could be using that energy. I don't know if that's the case. Bitcoin mining might just be the most profitable thing to do, so nothing else was attempted.
I'd also say that gaming at least occupies the human who is playing. Mining would be running in the background: the human would still be consuming energy doing something else. So one doesn't replace the other. Therefore using the inefficiency of one to justify the inefficiency of the other is not a valid argument.
One last observation: you're assuming that all these video cards would still have been produced. Maybe production of hardware has gone up to serve the mining demand.
There is, of course, the danger of collusion among original authors and validators. Hopefully the fear of having your results rebuked would prevent people from trying to publish bullshit in the first place.
Another problem is logistics. Research labs have their own ideas they want to push forward, so spending time and resources proving or (even worse) disproving some else's idea doesn't sound that great. Also, even if it gives you citations, it probably wouldn't help you with your thesis.
Anyways, it's a tough problem to solve.
To your point though, I do see a lot of unnecessary disruption particularly in the web dev world. I think people like working on new stuff. It's exciting to take the first steps, see order of magnitude improvements every commit.
I agree with your point: under a true UBI, workers would be able to seek their passions, do whatever they like to do. Doesn't matter if the position is risky or if the pay is low. Worst case scenario, if anything goes wrong, people can fall back on UBI and have their basic needs covered.
In my comment I meant to talk about the guaranteed government job thing that the article mentioned. In that case workers wouldn't have the kind of mobility or guarantees granted by UBI. Startups would actually be competing with the government for people.
I apologize I misused the term UBI before (which is what caused the confusion.)
The author's ultimate assumption is that money supply is somehow decoupled from accumulation. People receiving money from the government and using it to buy their basic needs may not drive inflation because their labor is not being procured by anyone else AND those basic goods they are buying would not be produced otherwise. However, the constant money stream will drive accumulation on the other side of the economy.
The owners of capital (or the 1%, however you may want to call them) would become unimaginably wealthy in a scenario like this. And it would be hard to prevent that. A super wealthy class is already a big problem today. Imagine the influence that group would have in politics if they had 10x the purchase power they have today.
Another problem that I believe exists with instituting a UBI through money creation (e.g., MMT) is lack of innovation and market disruption. It essentially puts a tax on innovation. In order to hire people you now have to be able to afford to pay more than the government and still have sufficient funds to fight well-established mega corporations.