sorry, but you guys can't even spell ChatGPT 🤔

Fulfillment has changed in so many ways

But let’s assume AI does all these things better than humans? I still think that there will for a long time be many people in poor situations that need help and assistance.

Are we already assuming that AI will be able to solve these issues? Congratulations- you are in the first generation of mankind to experience a world where people are free, where people are not hungry, and where people always have a place to live. It’s quite a hyper optimistic point of view in my opinion.

Life is so short and for most the ability to spend time with their families and not have to deal with the stress of providing modern life, is something that we should acknowledge as perhaps the greatest achievement ever as a society.

Think of hobbies, If AI can write better music than me ? So many people already can, but they aren’t writing my music. I enjoy playing the guitar and singing, and AI can’t do that for me, only I can.

AI can’t replace throwing the ball in the backyard with your son for the first time

AI can’t replace everything

The idea of removing money is a radical thought, but I'm not advocating utopia or equality of outcome.

There will always be people who are more attractive, more talented in certain areas and so on. Hierarchies aren't inherently evil.

What I advocate is investigation into the idea of making the basics available to people. Food. Shelter. Health care. Automation. A sharing economy, where most items wil be rented for free in a library. You can rent it for however long you see fit. Certain items can be personal and kept forever in some cases. 3d printing facilities available for everyone. Emphasis on reuse of products.

Its difficult to imagine such a society, but we need to consider these options. It may be possible.

If you throw away the need for economic growth and therefore cyclical consumption, you automatically get vastly better products because planned obsolescence is no longer needed to maintain profit. Instead of products cheaply made thst break down, you get modular, upgradable products that might last an order of magnitude longer. As a result of thst, you get lower demand, which saves the environment too.

The end of hustle culture. The end of celebrity culture. The end of a large amount of artificiality. Not to mention, an end to most wars (which are mostly based on resource/territorial scarcity as far as I understand).

What about cyborgs? I'm telling ya they always forget about the cybernetics

Yup. Plus hobbies can have plenty of challenge and sense of achievement in them.

Why would you hear about the people who retire young with just a few million?

Do people really find it fulfilling to be a small cog in the success of a company? I mean maybe if the company you work for is doing something cool or good for the world, but most aren't. We have to remember that companies haven't been around forever. Way way back your only job was to be part of a tribe and contribute to the basic survival of yourself and your community. Wouldn't it be a better world if we could live in a society where we get our fulfillment from helping one another out? All these things we've decided we need in order to feel fulfilled in the modern world are largely just a result of the pursuit of money being pushed on us as the most important thing our whole lives, and then most people find out that having those things doesn't actually bring them the satisfaction they were hoping for anyway.

Mix but mostly. The ideas are mine and originally I wanted it to help me write a book. But the tech limits made it impossible

Once I figured out what I wanted was impossible I kind of given up on making it the best it can be. I doubt at the end anyone would give any care about this

Was this generated by GPT-3?

More than just disappointing, it's outright disgusting. Change this shitty fucking world as fast as you can.

For most of history people didn't see things as constantly improving (or ought to be improving). Fulfillment of purpose was more about doing one's part well. Whether things got better or worse was up to God, or the gods. In our hypothetical, AI would play the role of the gods.

The other day I posted a thing on nanobots and it was pretty rough because reddit and I didn't format it that well. it was just a raw idea without focus.

Anyways, I wanted to expand on it so if anyone wants to read it then there. Note that site has a TTS. So you can simply press play and it will read to you.

Note I did use several AI to help me write this. But the idea is 100% mine. It was like pulling teeth to get them to stop talking about ethics.

Anyways sorry for any typos

🤣

By the metric of human perception and grading. Meaning that humans would grade the AI-generated music as superior to anything created by humans, same for literature, same for political ideas, same for social interaction, same for - you name it.

You seem to disagree, and have the opinion that there are tasks that humans will always outperform AIs in? Do you have any arguments for that view to be true?

Water is wet isn’t exactly a valuable input.

You don't hear about them because they retire to a private life. It's survivorship bias, you don't hear about the millionaires that don't keep working in the public eye so it seems like it doesn't happen

This. And there are bigger problems unsolved that scale might help with.

For example, finding synthetic cellular growth serums. This is a massive trial and error effort - which molecules in bovine plasma do you actually need for full development of structures in vitro.

Growing human organs. Similarly there is a vast amount of trial and error, you really need to have millions of attempts.

Even trying to do the above rationally, you need to investigate in parallel the effect of each unknown molecule. And you need a lot of experiments, not just one - you don't want to develop a false conclusion.

Ideally I can imagine a setup where scientific papers stop being encrypted with difficult to parse text, but are essentially in a standard machine duplicable form. So the setup and experiment sections are a link to the actual files used to configure the robotics, the results are the unabridged raw data. The analysis was done by an AI who was prompted on what you were looking for, so there can't be accusations of cherry picking a conclusion.

And journals don't accept non replicated work. What has to happen is the paper has to get 'picked up' by another lab, with a different source of funding (or the funding is done in a way that reduces COI), ideally using a different robotic software stack to turn the high level 'setup' files into actionable steps, a different robotics AI vendor, and a different model of robotic hardware.

Each "point of heterogeneity" above has to be part of the data quality metrics for the replication, and then depending on the discovered effects you only draw reliable conclusions on high quality data.

Also the above allows every paper to use all prior data on something rather than stand alone. Your prior should always be calculated from the set of all prior research, not split evenly between hypotheses.

Institutions are slow to change, but i can imagine a "new science" group of companies and institutions who uses the above, plus AGI, and they surge so far ahead of everyone else in results that no one else matters.

NASA vs the Kenyan space program.

I know a company who's currently training and tuning a model from their sales call center. They are transcribing all their sales calls and rating their quality, then using these to fine tune the model. In return, sales people will have dynamic scripts that are optimized based on 10s of thousands of successful sales calls, to know exactly what to say.

It's something a psychologist told me one time. He said of the people he treated, very few ~5% were interested in purpose and meaning, like I was meeting with him about.

Based on what I've heard about Google's AI -- That type of AGI is already there. I don't think any AGI will ever make everyone content as it's a broad moving goal post that's ill defined, and fundamentally digital is going to be different than biological processing, but the AI Google has is really really good. Mostly because it's multiple different types of AIs all networked together, connected to the internet, and can learn novel tasks on demand.

Why do multi-millionaires who could stop working after their first big contract, usually wait until they’re old to retire? They don’t need the money, yet you rarely hear about rich 20 year olds retiring and choosing to live the exact life some here claim they would enjoy. Why?

I don't think it's ethical to bring this up

Why do people opt to run off to the forest and never come back

Aren’t those just assumptions on your part tho? How do you know it isn’t simply because a life of endless hedonism probably becomes a bit boring after a little while?

I don't need purpose. I need sex, drugs, and whack-a-mole.