Idk but I’m wondering if computers will become the new slave labor and you have to own a fancy machine to do work and make money for you.

Your main goal in life must be to command a big share of the economic pie floating around at any given time.

To that end it is more important to associate with the right people than the mere job you do. Rich kids go to college, so must you. At least to the bachelor level.

I would aim for a government job in defense at the DoD. Something tech related. The have each other's back.

With the right experince and connections it is easy to transfer to private military contractors. The zip code around Washington DC is the wealthiest area in the entire USA.

When you look at these guys, many are offpring from rich families pushed into this direction with connections. If you can join their club you may enjoy their privileges and thus their job security.

I think this brings up an important question, is AI capable of making connections similarly to humans so that it can form new and novel connections that we would describe as creativity? Is a LLM that also has image association that different from the ways we understand and make connections with language?

The way we store word associations is interesting because words that are similar are physically located in similar areas of the brain; car and truck are closely located psychically. Does a computer need the same structures of language association we do to make similar connections, or could it represent something with a different structure to get to a similar functionality? I would say function over form.

Hence my putting "knew" in quotes. Didn't want to be guilty of anthropomorphism.

Ah, but Google search didn't. I queried "german equivalent of down the drain" and it returned the literal translation "in Eimer". Even in the first five or six results. Google Translate English->German translation of "all that work, down the drain" returned "

While I realize that chatGPT is just a dressed up Eliza psychoanalysis (from the 80's), nevertheless when it is correct, it looks very impressive. Emphasis on "when it is correct". I've also experienced results when the answer is not correct.

Aside: if one ever watches old episodes of the medical drama "House", there are numerous misdiagnoses before the actual solution is achieved. I assume that a medical professional draws on education + past experience to come up with a diagnosis. And a real-life doctor can be wrong. Would an AI trained on actual cases (vs using WEB-MD) be any less reliable than a human? Especially if it is fed corrections when it is wrong. Heuristics for the win, human an AI both.

It’s going to be a long time before plumbers aren’t needed.

I'm a professional interpreter and translator. AI will eat our lunch. It's simply a data issue. Google translate and similar models use a dictionary approach, a bit more complicated than 1 to 1 word translation but same overall principles. Once we train AI models on actual speech, with slang, common mistakes and cultural references, highly accurate real time interpretation will be accurate enough. These models won't follow a 1 to 1 word translation.

Already there.

I was doing that with the Vuzix blade AR glasses hooked into an automated speech transtription and google translate. So after I selected language, I just saw subtitles with whatever people were saying.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

It's not about getting in cheaper. In fact the first down-payment will be equivalent of a mainstream product. It's the only way to sell premium products to customers with decreasing income. Rent to own can have many variations. The one presented here is designed specifically to reward longevity and to guarantee no planned obsolescence.

>I think at best, it gives the illusion of individualism
>
>And that’s where I start feeling disturbed. When millions of people get their validation and affirmations from illusions, then that population is losing control.

This already happens since the first periods of globalization of technology. This was (and is) something that never in the human history occurred. I believe that your thoughts are good and applied over a new wave of changes, but this is happening some time by now. And because it is also a sociological advance, it's effective and the progress scale by giants steps, without having us, humans, the time to process and digest in order to make a smooth transition.

There was another era where the process of evolution in this aspects where more slowly so society even tended to stagnate for a time, seeing the changes as something very VERY different. Nowadays we don't even perceive some aspects because all is too fast, because things can be better in a short period of time, things can be more effective, in all good (personal, individual) and bad (society orchestration) meanings.

​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta41xU-tkFA

Definitely happening and not niche. Revit is used by many consultants and is a 3D modeling CAD software. When coordinating with the various disciplines you can use the software to move around the 3D model of the building. I assume someone is already using VR with this software.

Yeah - this site. https://www.aarons.com and before you say “but those products aren’t the long lasting type I imagined”, I think it’s because this model isn’t inherently going to solve this issue. You’re appealing to buyers that want to get in cheaper, not buyers that care about obsolescence

I suspect not. It just seems that way right now.

Thanks! Can you direct me to an example?

Isn't the creation of AI and the subsequent manipulation of it by humans the penultimate expression of our ability to create?

Ok that’s rent to own, and yes in rent to own the user is still in control. The consumer being able to terminate rights of use is the benefit of rent to own.

After a negotiated period. Anywhere from 5 to 7 years for standard users and 7 to 10 years for enterprises.

Compare that to my last 2 laptops which failed after 1 to 3 years of use.

On a macro level this model slows down the production/consumption cycle at both ends by reintroducing maximum quality paid for in installments.

Great for the environment too.

At what point do users have the right to resell? When do users own the product? If the answer is “never” then I don’t think you’re doing to have a lot of love here. People are getting tired and frustrated with subscription models.

I look at it as a new concept - the mass production of distinctiveness. Mass producing individualism.

The very idea strips the person of any real uniqueness. If you are one of countless millions getting something made just for you, by the same company or machine or software, and the other millions are doing the same thing, then just how unique and distinctive are you really going to be? And while it may be individualized, if there really any significant difference between each of those millions?

I think at best, it gives the illusion of individualism. The customer will likely believe, or choose to believe, that theirs is somehow superior. Unique. Tailored. Because in one sense it is. But when you take a step back and look at the larger picture, there’s really nothing unique about any of it.

And that’s where I start feeling disturbed. When millions of people get their validation and affirmations from illusions, then that population is losing control.

>If you are selling a product under its “value” with the idea that users will keep paying additional (on goodwill) after some period of time, you’ll find that users will just resell these products at high prices and buy another product at the “under valued” price.

Users are not paying on goodwill but upon inspection that the device is still functional. If it doesn't work then and only then they don't pay. Also if it's non-working they return it so they can't resell anything.

There is no under-valued price it just builds up with the longevity of the product. Failed promises failed payments. Unlike now where user damage saves the day every time.

Well then I’m confused and the model seems very broken. If you are selling a product under its “value” with the idea that users will keep paying additional (on goodwill) after some period of time, you’ll find that users will just resell these products at high prices and buy another product at the “under valued” price. This will cause supply and demand issues, and the undervalued price will just shoot up to the original price anyways.

If you’re saying they will never actually own the product and the subscription will go on for perpetuity, then this is just a simple rental model with requirement of an upfront payment. It’s viable but I’m not sure it does much to solve the obsolescence issue as phones have been following this model for many years and it seemed to do nothing to stop people from upgrading. In fact, before most carriers shifted more to “rent to own” models, people anxiously waited to upgrade after 2 years, meaning your model might actually be making the obsolescence problem worse.

A more efficient way to solve the problem of obsolesce is to make trash and disposal very expensive such that people are cautious about what they purchase. This would also reduce trash intake and profitability from trash to a point where we could implement a very high expectation of recycling with all trash. Consumers will buy things that last longer across the board, and manufacturers will design for longevity.