Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin
saurabhpandit267 hours ago | parent | context | favorite | on: "I'm on a war footing": Terry Tao and the crisis i... In a world with better economic system, such progress in Artificial Intelligence and automation would have been viewed more positively, I mean who doesnt want to work less and have AI make rapid discoveries in scientific field. Instead we are filled with anxiety and dread of what will happen to our jobs and how we will survive. help 
Zambyte1 hour ago | next[–] I am not a mathematician, but from what I understand, mathematicians just do not not see this as progress. They see it as being robbed of potential progress. Mathematical progress is not achieved in the solutions to hard problems, it is achieved in the method of finding the solution. We are being robbed of the opportunity to find the solution by being handed the solutions. This was a video I saw that covered this idea well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqiDqJMxg6o reply Maro49 minutes ago | parent | next[–] I am also not a mathematician, but I think this is an assumption that people are making. It could be that by reading the solutions/proofs of these AI-generated results, those methods could still be discovered, ie. the AI could be discovering new novel methods implicitly. It's not exactly the same thing, but when the Navier Stokes blow-up "solution" came out, there was a lot of hoopla around it being stolen and not novel, but then once the dust settled, we had this: > But closer examination reveals that OpenAI’s proof builds its unnatural force in a totally distinct way. The proof’s similarities to Buckmaster and Alpöge’s progress are superficial... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/openais-blockbust... So I think more time needs to pass before a call can be made. An interesting thought experiment is this: if we were to go back in time 150 years and tell our ancestors that Newton is just an approximation and give them a 5,000 page book about Special and General Relativity, QM and QFT, would we be robbing them? Initially the whole thing would be incomprehensible, but eventually they would chew through it and make sense of it. I don't really know the answer (and perhaps the analogy is not great since we're quite attached to our physics heroes from the last 150 years). reply alansaber47 minutes ago | parent | prev | next[–] That is the case many fields. Mathematicians, like physicists, are trained to develop a strong focus on methodology and intuition. It seems likely that the dynamic by which that intuition is gained will change. reply Sharlin4 hours ago | prev | next[–] I don’t think it’s about job security in the case of professional mathematicians. It’s about the fear of giving up the very thing they’re passionate about. It’s not like math researchers work on pure math because of the pay. If anything, they do it despite the pay. reply agentcoops3 hours ago | parent | next[–] It can be a mix of both. There's no reason, after all, that humans no longer being the most intelligent systems on the planet has to mean giving up such a passion, especially since it means living in a world with more and not less mathematics. One has to separate the joy of doing mathematics from a capacity (or, more importantly, need) to obtain a living doing it from the pride of being the best in your field. It's interesting to recall Turing's own position: "There would be great opposition [to AI] from the intellectuals who were afraid of being put out of a job. It is probable though that the intellectuals would be mistaken about this. There would be plenty to do, i.e. in trying to keep one’s intelligence up to the standard set by the machines, for it seems probable that once the machine thinking method had started, it would not take long to outstrip our feeble powers. There would be no question of the machines dying, and they would be able to converse with each other to sharpen their wits." On the other hand, Thomas Bernhard's The Loser is a horrifying account of the opposite standpoint---of an essentially second best piano student who cannot stand existing in a world with Glenn Gould. reply varjag2 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] A world where there are fewer humans who can ever understand math is the world with less mathematics. reply Loquebantur2 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] What would such a world look like? Mathematics represents the rational skeleton that upholds and stabilizes our vague, formless but far more common belief-based thinking. Without it, losing it from neglect, we would collapse back into a pre-rational state of fantastical, wishful thinking. Pretty much exemplified by large parts of US society already, but there is no bottom otherwise keeping society from collapse. reply knottn18 minutes ago | parent | prev | next[–] Distinction without a difference. They happen to have jobs that they are passionate about. Many people do. reply mrheosuper3 hours ago | parent | prev | next[–] >It’s about the fear of giving up the very thing they’re passionate about They have nothing to fear if that is their motivation. New players get into chess every year despite computer vastly outperform us. reply lvoudour2 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] Math is more like a treasure hunt than a chess game. Once the treasure is found, it's over. You can try chasing other treasures of course, but now you deal with superhuman competition (which will only become better with time). I can understand this is devastating and depressing reply Sharlin1 hour ago | root | parent | prev | next[–] That’s exactly the fear: that math becomes just a meaningless game. Us mere mortals can get enjoyment from solving math puzzles whose solutions are well known, but it’s rather different being in the frontier, discovering entirely novel mathematical structures and proof techniques – and answers to questions nobody knows how to answer yet, sometimes even questions nobody has thought to ask yet! reply varjag2 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next[–] Math is not entertainment though. It's one area where a sole human can do some of the most profound contributions to humanity. reply ekr4 hours ago | parent | prev | next[–] I think you're wrong, and that's bullst. Something about virtue signalling. Not just the pay, but motivation doesn't work on math insight alone. If you look from a distance it's clearly a mix of status, money etc. If what you say was true, many of them would be recluses up in the mountains, but none of them are. LE. Think about it this way: if someone truly only cares about his ability to do "non-AI-contaminated" mathematics, nothing stops them from ignoring all the AI-related papers and just carrying on on his own. The thing that they are passionate about is not taken away by the field being more rapidly developed. What's being potentially taken away is the impact of their potential contribution. reply Sharlin3 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] > If what you say was true, many of them would be recluses up in the mountains, but none of them are. Except, for instance, Wiles and Perelman? And I’m pretty sure that mathematicians are rather more introverted and solitary on average than most people. In any case, that just doesn’t follow. Mathematicians realize that collaboration is important in math just as it is in most other fields. Humans are also social animals and many of us enjoy collaboration and social interaction for its own sake. And yes, that means social status is a thing that motivates many humans. But nobody decides to study math in order to gain status! Any status stuff is entirely contextual to and conditional on having already decided to study math. reply ekr3 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] I maintain that you present a picture that's incompatible with how the human nervous system works. And that all humans are driven by the same biological mechanisms, all evolved by pressures to survive and reproduce. Mathematical beauty alone is not part of said pressures. reply arcanemachiner3 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next[–] Why wouldn't you just say bullshit? You didn't even write it in a self-censored format (e.g. bulls**t), you just wrote the actual word with a some funny characters in place of the actual letters. reply ekr3 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] Some online platform automatically censor or bring about negative repercussions for a given set of banned words. I realize HN is probably not among them, but I still formed this involuntary habit. You have a point tho. It does look much better in what you call self-censored format. reply bebimbop4 hours ago | prev | next[–] Oh Brave New World. Now that all of the trite and boring intellectual work is automated, I can look forward to having it bottle-fed back to me at night. Now get me a gramme in time... reply defrost4 hours ago | parent | next[–] I'm glad I'm not an Alpha, thinking so much is hard. Up and down is so much fun - what floor sir? ~ unnamed Gamma BNW elevator technician. reply globular-toast7 hours ago | prev | next[–] That's a big part of it, but I don't think it paints the whole picture. We are also losing the bits of work that were actually enjoyable. The challenge, thinking and creativity gave us something we enjoyed. Now we're like border collies in a world with no more sheep and now even the ball comes back by itself. reply 1dom4 hours ago | parent | next[–] I disagree that what you're describing isn't just another angle of "broken economic system". The broken economic system is the lack of perceived individual choice, and the priority of business decisions and business profit over individual satisfaction or autonomy. If we lived in an economic system where maximising individual enjoyment and autonomy was priority, we could give AI to individuals to do with what they want. No sensible human/border collie would choose to give away the fun sheep herding part of their job if there weren't other forces and incentives at work. But instead, AI is sold to businesses to profit, rather than given to individuals to do the right thing for everyone. reply srdjanr4 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] I don't think a system maximizing enjoyment would be any better. Why would anyone choose to work with sewage? Or why would most developers choose to align with rest of the team or with user needs, when programming is most enjoyable? reply 1dom4 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] > I don't think a system maximizing enjoyment would be any better. That's why I mentioned autonomy too. People like working and being valuable and choosing to add value. The issue is the current economic system doesn't consider things valuable if they don't directly generate a lot of money or profit for a business. An individual developer gets a lot of value from having a job they enjoy where they produce useful code that solves problems. AI removes some of that value for the individual developer whilst promising more profit and value for the business. > Why would anyone choose to work with sewage? Or why would most developers choose to align with rest of the team or with user needs, when programming is most enjoyable? Why do people choose to work with sewage now? They're not paid a lot. Programming is most enjoyable when it's useful. Writing code which is going to get thrown out because it doesn't align with your team is not valuable or fun, so why you or any other individual developer choose to do that given the choice? reply tourmalinetaco1 hour ago | root | parent | next[–] As a hobbyist developer, I hate busywork. Boilerplate code is the bane of my existence, as is repetitive data entry. Forcing the demon at my command to do it for me so I can problem solve is far more enjoyable, and more efficient in terms of time. AI one-shotting problems is benefited by me thoroughly understanding and solving the problem with pseudocode in the initial prompt. I still do the intellectual work, but the LLM does the busywork. Also, some things simply are not valuable within a system, regardless of the economic structures at play. Individual happiness is one of those things that has no value under any economic system, specifically because it is a moving target and follows Goodhart’s law. reply raziel27016 hours ago | parent | prev | next[–] Another one that comes to mind is Marge Simpson in the Hank Scorpio episode where all labor in the house was automated and she turns to drinking out of boredom. reply oliwary4 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] Or the Grey men in Momo (Michael Ende) who offer time savings through efficient appliances, while stealing the time made free through their use. Their main for is Momo, who encourages her fellow children to play for the sake of playing, which terrifies them. It's a beautiful story, more and more relevant. reply asanineassasin6 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next[–] Scorpio! He'll sting you with his dreams of power and wealth. Beware of Scorpio! His twisted twin obsessions are his plot to rule the world And his employees' health. He'll welcome you into his lair Like the nobleman welcomes his guest With free dental care and a stock plan that helps you invest! But beware of his generous pensions Plus three weeks paid vacation each year And on Fridays, the lunchroom serves hot dogs and burgers and beer! He loves German beer! reply throw3108226 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next[–] I'm fine with it as long as machines find the cure for hangover. reply drekipus5 hours ago | parent | prev | next[–] Is there any evidence that the thinking and creativity that we enjoyed has disappeared? I'm firmly in the "programming is fun" camp, I enjoy thinking about the problems and solutions, but if I can get a LLM to deal with boilerplate then that's all the better for me. reply NL8074 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] I'm in the same camp, for the most part. But I also groan when someone checks in 60k+ LOC of vibecoded changes into production, without having any clue how it works. This happened to me recently. I was about start a fun module in the project, but then the other guy just pulled the rug from under me with claude and implemented the whole thing, then moved on. Not sure if I want to work under such conditions. reply globular-toast29 minutes ago | root | parent | prev | next[–] That's what I thought about 6 months ago: I'm a programmer, not a typist, so I'll just automate the typing part. There are a few problems with that: 1. AI agents aren't just typists. They'll fill in the blanks and implement something that works from extremely vague instructions and probably get it right too, because you and your users are predictable. You could be strict and throw out any changes that weren't explicitly what you asked for, but it becomes tiring and it will shape the way you think anyway. It becomes extremely tempting to increase the boundary of what you consider "boilerplate", 2. You probably have colleagues who don't like programming but please the managers because, of course, everything needs to get done right now, as soon as possible. Maybe one day we'll get organisations where enjoyment and understanding matters, but right now we've got tons of people who got in it for the money, just like to "build stuff" and don't care one iota about understanding (and they're oddly proud of this fact), 3. I'm starting to think the typing was a necessary limitation on output speed. I just don't think anyone can think as fast as LLMs can churn out code. You can easily get addicted to the speed and forgo understanding. Like point 1 this is insidious. If you're not really careful you just won't be able to keep up and before long you too will have a bunch of code you don't understand. reply crossroadsguy4 hours ago | prev | next[–] Something tell me that at this point anyone saying stuff like war footing etc, against or for the AI (or anywhere in its immediate vicinity), are just doing it so that they can be one of the few who get benefited from it and are one of the few who also get to be in control and get to have power. Because they can see the writing on the wall and know that one either gets on this bus, or under it. A lot specialist creds/USPs are getting diluted every hour, every day. reply lapinot4 hours ago | parent | next[–] > Because they can see the writing on the wall and know that one either gets on this bus, or under it. good ol' TINA is back in town... reply conartist64 hours ago | parent | prev | next[–] It might also mean they came for you. There's a whole industry of people on LinkedIn, preaching that I don't exist, that I'm obselete or worthless or deluded. You get mad fast at the torrent of lies and "come to jesus" thinking. Then they help themselves to your software. reply bigstrat20036 hours ago | prev | next[–] > I mean who doesnt want to work less and have AI make rapid discoveries in scientific field. A whole lot of people. Anyone who got into mathematics for love of solving problems (which I'm betting is most of them, as it's not like the pay is awesome) will be unhappy if they have the joy of solving problems taken away from them. Your argument here is analogous to saying "who doesn't want to have more children in the world without having to have sex to do it?". reply carlosjobim5 hours ago | parent | next[–] It is not taken away from them and cannot be taken away from them. Just like you can solve any puzzle you like even if there is already a solution. reply stouset5 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] That’s not entirely true. There is joy in being someone who pushed the frontier of knowledge forward, even if only by a hair. This is evidenced by the scant few people who get into math just so they can rediscover group theory or differential calculus on their own with no spoilers. reply pantalaimon5 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] But how many people get to do that? For most people, math consists of solving problems to which a solution already exists. reply coldtea5 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] Those people can use whatever. The argument was about mathematicians, and "anyone who got into mathematics for love of solving problems". reply coldtea5 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next[–] Difficult to do that when you're unemployed, because machines took over your field. We're not talking about doing it as a hobby. reply carlosjobim27 minutes ago | root | parent | next[–] You'll have to do something else for your income. That's how it is for most people who can't make an income from their hobby. reply kurtis_reed4 hours ago | parent | prev | next[–] So mathematicians are no different from any other labor group that fights automation for their own benefit at the cost of overall welfare. Most artists are unpaid hobbyists, mathematicians should expect the same. reply Planktonne3 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] That would make society worse, not better. More people being unhappy and unfulfilled and underpaid is not progress. reply piokoch2 hours ago | prev | next[–] It seems that all AI can do, it can just "replace the average". Write an average quality software, do good enough business analysis, prepare mediocre report, do a bearable, but not so great translation, give you some basic medical advice, which is accurate 80% of time (but what if you are not lucky to have typical conditions?). It can also solve average difficulty level problems in math or physics. That what it cannot do is to invent new drugs, cannot figure out cheap energy sources, find something better than Standard Model in physics, and anything that would contribute to overall human progress. The result is that it can replace a lot of jobs, it will efficiently killed any research done and the level of master/PhDs, because majority of those can be done now with the help of AI (we already see this, the burst in new scientific articles - nothing groundbreaking, but publishable). As a results we will have soon a gap, as only very determined people would go into science, analytical jobs, etc. In one way, this is OK, we had too much science research that was done only for the sake of producing more "papers", we also had a lot of people in the companies doing "bullshit jobs". But on the other hand, we might face soon situation in which there will be almost no people in Academia, so who will teach people, in addition, science worked often by doing wrong, unreasonable, crazy things, testing vague ideas and come up with something new and great. This required a lot of people doing science without any good results coming out, a lot of seemingly wasted effort just to hit several great ideas (a bit like Venture Capitals work). This might also lead to decreasing number of white collar jobs. We can have a new "rust belt", the one for blue collar fall happened because of jobs offshoring, now we are "offshoring" white collar jobs to a few companies who offer AI models. This all will affect badly society without any huge, visible benefits for it as a whole. reply Maro2 hours ago | parent | next[–] > It seems that all AI can do, it can just "replace the average". That has not been my experience. reply alansaber45 minutes ago | root | parent | next[–] Because it's an oversimplification. AI proficiency is very spiky around tasks with well-defined reward patterns. reply kypro4 hours ago | prev | next[–] This isn't really a political problem. Politics is downstream of what we humans want, and more specifically what humans with power want. The reason most problems aren't fixed is because you and I rather take our family to Disney Land than feed starving kids. We're don't vote for a political system which taxes us significantly more to try to stop people starving around the world. The problems Tao is worried about already exist for a large part of humanity. You have two problems here: 1. You're not going to change the human incentive to care far more about their own family and friends and resist the government taking their assets to help the needy they feel no responsibility for. 2. In a world where most people are economically useless people ultimately have no political power. If you're not funding the government or contributing to it's maintenance then government ultimately doesn't need to care about what you want. You could go on strike or tell them you're very unhappy, but so long as the trillion-dollar AI companies are funding them and AI is running the government it makes no difference to them what people think. In fact, from their perspective, all you're doing is consuming resources. AI will likely create a new kind of resource-curse where wealth concentration will cause political corruption. reply williamdclt3 hours ago | parent | next[–] > This isn't really a political problem What you're saying in this comment sounds very much like politics, at least modern politics. There's been a few studies that suggest that people's position on the political spectrum is very correlated to their capacity for empathy for others (and in particular, strangers). First example I found on google: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10281241/ (note: I do not vouch for scientific rigorousness, I'm saying "some studies suggest that" not "it's proven that"). So: > you and I rather take our family to Disney Land than feed starving kids Speaking for myself, it's more true than false (although not that clear-cut). However: > We don't vote for a political system which taxes us significantly more to try to stop people starving around the world I sure do vote for that, as do a very significant portion of people. It's absolutely what I want, I am aware of my own biases (and other people's) to prioritise myself, and taxes are a good way to force this redistribution of wealth to happen despite these individual biases. That's kind of the whole point of the left, which is a very strong power in many countries (note: I'm not american and the "american left" is very different from other countries'). So "what humans want" is very much a political question: a very-much-reducted observation of the political spectrum is that it seems that right-leaning people want the best for themselves and their immediate social circle, whereas left-leaning people want the best for everyone. reply DrScientist4 hours ago | parent | prev | next[–] On your second point, that rather assumes those 'unless' people will willing to just 'go away'. That's typically not what happens - you either get bloody revolution or people just ignore the rules that aren't giving them a fair shot ( ie turn to crime - ie state disapproved activities ). This is what has traditionally held back the elite from their worse excesses - they don't want to live in a world where either of those things happen. ie what's the point of being rich if you are constantly worried about yourself or a member of your family is going to be violently kidnapped etc. As to your first point - it's a bit like the first - if there is no social safety net, then it you could happen to you - you could get ill, lose your job etc. Even if you believe the system is created by total self-interest - then the past has shown that the equilibrium involves looking after everyone to some extent as: 1. It could be you one day. 2. Having lots of desperate people, even if it isn't you, is in no-ones self interest. reply tuyiown4 hours ago | parent | prev | next[–] It's not about what we want, it's about what we believe. All you describe is enabled by beliefs systems, it's above rationalization. What you're describing is just learned helplessness. reply regentbowerbird4 hours ago | parent | prev | next[–] You seem to believe getting taxed is a choice people make. However, on the one hand economists like Zucman and news stories like the Panama Papers have proven the ultra-wealthy and politicians ("economically useful people") pay way less tax than regular people. And on the other, basically most people disagree with at least some of the uses of taxation, such as a war spending in the US. In fact, sometimes people get taxed without getting any benefits at all in return, such as during government shutdowns. I think this all calls into question your basic premise that "politics is downstream of what we humans want", ie that the state is an emanation of the collective will of the people, which it serves. The facts fit equally well, if not better, an interpretation in which the state is independent of society and seeks to extract resources from it. This is also consistent with the Weberian state conception in which the state starts as the "stationary bandit" that collects taxes from a village to protect it from other bandits. Your conception of "economically useless people" is also incoherent. Economic science is about how to distribute rare resources to maximize utility. These people are no less able to work and no less able to benefit from utility and are therefore not "useless" from an economic standpoint. I think you would benefit from just using words like "rich & powerful" and "poor & weak" which if I understand correctly is what you actually mean. reply 17186274403 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] > I think this all calls into question your basic premise that "politics is downstream of what we humans want" It only questions "the government is downstream of what we humans want". politics != government. reply myaccountonhn7 hours ago | prev | next[–] I think there should be a political movement that retries socialism with AI. Basically nationalize everything and then automate everything. I think people could get behind that. Basically fully automated luxury communism. reply tarsinge2 hours ago | parent | next[–] Progress in AI definitely makes the question of economic planification at a state level relevant again, at least for parts of the economy, be it for the disruption it causes to market economy (that was already showing lot of cracks btw) or the capabilities it gives to handle beyond human level complex systems. reply alansaber43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next[–] I can see AI-automated logistics and production being popular. And AI-automated everything else being deeply unpopular. reply pantalaimon5 hours ago | parent | prev | next[–] But what about things where we still need humans, like food production, healthcare or construction and plumbing? reply coldtea5 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] What about them? What part of it wouldn't work? reply amoss47 minutes ago | parent | prev | next[–] what kind of a Culture would that lead to? reply timeninja7 hours ago | parent | prev | next[–] Chile in the 1970s, anyone? reply w4der7 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] That was a scam or at least overblown in scope, the "control room" you see in pictures was basically a movie prop, and their idea was basically to connect that room to every factory/port/mine with teletypes, it's similar in spirit to what a modern stock should do. reply coldtea5 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] Maybe if they haven't been bombed to death very soon afterwards, control room and everything, for trying to make things better for their population and kicking out foreign neocolonialists, would have gotten an update. reply kombookcha1 hour ago | parent | prev | next[–] In the book Red Plenty, on the Soviet economy of the mid 20th century, there's a section on an abortive attempt at optimizing the command economy using early computers and algorithms to have more effective production and distribution. The attempt never materializes because some kindly clerk deliberately buries the letter from the enthusiastic engineer, who clearly does not understand that writing Stalin to tell him you figured out a way to build communism better than him, would be suicidal. It's a fun counterfactual to think about, given that the vast bureaucracy needed for the command economy was one of its major limiting factors. Anyway, interesting book if you are into economic policy or quirky ways that systems can go haywire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Plenty reply vixen995 hours ago | parent | prev | next[–] On what basis do you think that's a good idea? This is a genuine question not a snide comment. I'm interested in your conception as to why it works for you. You're unlikely to respond here but maybe you or someone else will add a helpful link. I will admit that the idea does not 'compute' for me taking into account the nature of human beings - but I'm open to argument. reply coldtea5 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] > the idea does not 'compute' for me taking into account the nature of human beings - but I'm open to argument.* The current arrangement does not compute (or work), and gets us straight to doom, "taking into account the nature of human beings". reply Schlagbohrer5 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next[–] "Taking into account the nature of human beings" you mean humans' innate desire to help others, to share, to make friends, to spend time working together on shared projects / pursuing shared goals? Or did you mean "human nature" (I'm using huge air quotes there) as you have experienced it in late 20th century / early 21st century United States? reply myaccountonhn4 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next[–] In the past I've been partial to a society based around self-actualization, like a liberal capitalistic society. However, with the way LLMs are progressing then I think society will turn increasingly technocratic and feudal, with no opportunities for social mobility. I don't really believe that LLMs will create new jobs or opportunities in the long run. Historically socialism and central planning have been inefficient. With recent technological advancements it may be that the purported inefficiencies are no longer there, and I think a democratic, socialist government will be better at having the interest of the people than private for-profit monopolies. A society where everything is automated and you don't have to work could be pretty nice to live in. reply altmanaltman6 hours ago | parent | prev | next[–] You think people can get behind that? Like if Trump's US suddenly decided everything is state property and Elon Musk will be helping people automate everything, people will be like yeah that sounds good. reply myaccountonhn6 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] Nah not with Trump and Musk. It would have to be presented by a leftist, and maybe in a country outside the US. reply imtringued4 hours ago | parent | prev | next[–] Communism will work the moment communists understand options markets, specifically call options, which is to say that communism is impossible. Curiously, capitalism will work the moment capitalists understand options markets, but in their case they need to also understand put options, which is to say that capitalism is impossible. reply vasco6 hours ago | parent | prev | next[–] There's no such thing. It'd be dictatorial as every other communist state ever was, and that's hoping the people in power wouldn't also subscribe to the communist ideas of killing a bunch of people to enable the revolution and to do it fast. Or read Terrorism and Communism (1920) and get scared - though most people end up thinking these mad men were nice grandpas. reply rwmj3 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] Luckily our current authoritarian fascists are not showing any signs of preferring dictatorship over democracy. reply 101110016 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next[–] > There's no such thing. It'd be dictatorial as every other communist state ever was, and that's hoping the people in power wouldn't also subscribe to the communist ideas of killing a bunch of people to enable the revolution and to do it fast. Or read Terrorism and Communism (1920) and get scared - though most people end up thinking these mad men were nice grandpas. Oh come on. Here's another thing to get scared about: AI and other kinds of advanced automation has the potential to completely undermine the attributes that made capitalism work for the vast majority of people. Rehashing dated mid-century anti-Communist propaganda tropes isn't going to address that. You're gonna need some fresh ideas. Also people who want to seriously recreate the Soviet Union don't practically exist (outside of some irrelevant weirdos), except in the minds of some really indoctrinated libertarians. reply Dig1t7 hours ago | parent | prev | next[–] >nationalize everything The government does not have an incentive to run anything efficiently as they cannot go bankrupt. Imagine if AI was run like the DMV. Putting monopoly control of it in the hands of government also makes it extremely likely that whoever is in power will use it to manipulate public opinion + elections as well as encoding their political values into it. What do you think a Trump-controlled AI would say if I asked about the war in Iran? We’ve already seen examples of companies encoding their beliefs into the system (see Gemini saying nuclear war is preferable to misgendering Caitlyn Jenner), imagine how much worse it would be if politicians were given control instead. reply myaccountonhn6 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] There will always be challenges, as is the case with any system. But I guess I don't really think LLMs will create a bunch of new jobs, so either we look into the future with gloom and doom as we who don't have wealth become part of a permanent underclass as opportunities continue to disappear, or we envision a utopia and work to realize it. reply d0nkee6 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next[–] Prior to Republicans demanding the Post Office fund retirements in advance and various other hamstringing to other services US government was ridiculously efficient They had to pass legislation to intentionally fuck the books to make them inefficient to fit their preferred narrative because government could be held accountable for inefficiency in ways private corps cannot. reply eli_gottlieb6 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next[–] > Imagine if AI was run like the DMV. I went to the DMV in Oakland and it was the most efficient DMV I'd ever been to. reply Dig1t6 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] Does the DMV have a reputation for being fast, efficient, or an enjoyable experience? Personally I remember waiting for hours in a line wrapped around the building for the chance to take my drivers license test. Another example: have you ever tried to interact with the IRS? The most nightmarish bureaucratic system I’ve ever had the displeasure of interacting with. And guess what my recourse is for them treating me like garbage? Nothing. A company, if they treat me poorly, I can take my business elsewhere. The IRS? The DMV? Not so much. reply mturmon5 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] > A company, if they treat me poorly, I can take my business elsewhere. Like Chevron, or Verizon, or Microsoft. reply Dig1t5 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] All of those companies are perfect examples of what I’m talking about. Chevron: Exxon, ConocoPhillips, BP. From a customer perspective there are tons of competitors which make your life better ranging from QT, AMPM, to Buc-ees (a favorite which people literally LOVE to visit). Verizon: Starlink, TMobile, ATT, Comcast, etc Microsoft: Apple, Google, Cloudflare, Amazon (differentiates itself literally on quality of customer service) The IRS or DMV? No competitor. Unhappy with their service? Go fuck yourself. reply spoctrial3 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next[–] This is a very bad example. The IRS is treating you bureaucratically and poorly because of lobbying from companies and politicians being bribed by said lobbyists. My point being that you are beholden to a poorly functioning IRS because of capitalism; where companies have lobbied so hard against tax reform and simple filing that it more or less forces you to use their software. reply Dig1t2 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] I call the IRS and wait 4 hours on hold waiting to talk to a person. I get disconnected randomly and have to call back the next day only to have to wait another 4 hours. Finally I get in touch with someone and they are extremely rude, unhelpful, and treat me like garbage. How is this somehow the fault of “capitalism”? Regardless of how the system is structured, the government has a near-infinite budget, they could theoretically staff the agency with enough people to answer my call in a timely manner. They could also train their staff to treat me with human dignity. They don’t do this, and the reason is that they have no incentive to do so. If I am upset by being treated poorly what recourse do I have? Nothing. In fact if I ignore their system long enough, armed goons will show up with guns and arrest me. There are many examples of government agencies that have this reputation, not only in the USA but the entire world. “Show me the incentive and I’ll show you the outcome” -Charlie Munger reply asanineassasin6 hours ago | parent | prev | next[–] Socialism CAN not work due to human nature. The sociopaths hijack the centralized assets while exterminating via reallocation all opposition. And the micromanaging from a distance produces catastrophic results. reply bebimbop4 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] It's good that all of these benevolent billionaires are bestowing the world with the fruits of their goodness, and make sure that assets, knowledge and access to the market are fairly distributed. Their political involvement is to the benefit of all of mankind, and does thankfully not lead to the centralization of assets or power in one small group. reply asanineassasin2 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] Well, so if its all the same- why not just say yes to cooperate-socialism? You just accept that the party (company) owns all the things and redistribute them as they see fit (for the benefit of all) - so wether the bossmann is called stalin or bezos- what difference does it make. Congrats, you got socialism speedrun- you are already at the disilusioned stage where you see the endresult. And thats still a efficient version, because the varous corporate-socialist empires have still to compete against one another. Now get in line critizen. reply easyThrowaway4 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next[–] > The sociopaths hijack the centralized assets while exterminating via reallocation all opposition. And the micromanaging from a distance produces catastrophic results. Am I missing the sarcasm here? The difference from the current system would be...? reply myaccountonhn5 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next[–] > And the micromanaging from a distance produces catastrophic results. I think this has historically been true, but it is worth revisiting now with AI and general tech advancement. Might be more feasible now. > Socialism CAN not work due to human nature. The sociopaths hijack the centralized assets while exterminating via reallocation all opposition. You could also argue that capitalism CAN not work due to human nature. Just look at the state of climate change. reply pantalaimon5 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] What makes you think socialism would handle climate change differently? The socialism that did exist didn't take environmental preservation seriously and rather tried to silence reports about the damage. reply porsager7 hours ago | parent | prev | next[–] I think there should be a political movement that retries capitalism with AI. Basically liberate everything and then automate everything. I think people could get behind that. reply ludston6 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] Good ole mass-starvation for the majority that can't find work that appeases the ownership class? It's a unique value-system I suppose. reply pantalaimon5 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] Mass starvation was more of a communism thing, not accounting for wars. reply idiotsecant2 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next[–] A system where the humans value is tied to their ability to outproduce a massively more capable machine intelligence? How does that work, exactly? reply watwut6 hours ago | prev | next[–] Progress in tech never implied working less. reply coldtea5 hours ago | parent | next[–] It has always implied working less. And not just implied: it has been a repeatedly openly made promise, from the start of the industrial age to today, repeated again and again, by scientists, journalists, technologists, futorologists, businessmen, even by sci-fi authors. reply gmueckl4 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] That mostly changes what people worked on rather than the total amount of time spent working. reply coldtea1 hour ago | root | parent | next[–] In effect yes. But the promise of less work, and more free time, has been there from the beggining. In the early/mid 20th century they even had big discussions and books about what people would do with all the "leisure" time that was coming. reply watwut4 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next[–] By implied I meant "caused". I did not meant "made people speculate that it might do something theoretically". Also, what sci-fi authors and futurologists write is utterly irrelevant here. We should distinguish fantasy and reality. Practically, technological progress does not implies working less, it implies higher productivity. Which implies more wealth for "someone". Who that someone is depends on political system. reply coldtea1 hour ago | root | parent | next[–] >By implied I meant "caused". I did not meant "made people speculate that it might do something theoretically" That's on you. Implied doesn't mean "caused". >Also, what sci-fi authors and futurologists write is utterly irrelevant here. We should distinguish fantasy and reality A useless distinction, since what sci-fi authors were saying was taken to be a foretelling of things to come, adopted as such by many voices in the wider cultural space. And of course futurologists were people who made (or attempted to make) informed predictions and even policy suggestions of things to come, not mere "fantasy" peddlers. >Practically, technological progress does not implies working less, it implies higher productivity That's your concept of it. Hasn't been historically the concept people (from technologists and journalists to politicians and sociologists) had of it. And even if it matches how things went, it's hardly the only way things could have gone (or should go). reply stevefan19994 hours ago | parent | prev | next[–] So you mean a combine harvester should make you work more, not less? reply otabdeveloper47 hours ago | prev[–] AI isn't making math discoveries. It's generating a metric shitload of syllogism slop, whuch may or may not correspond to reality. We will probably never know, because really who has time for this bullshit? reply tommek40776 hours ago | parent[–] Strange. In the article Tao mentions several mathematicians who had their problem solved by AI before they could finish their year long work. Where they working on "slop"? reply
Consider applying for YC's Winter 2027 batch! Applications are open till November 2. Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact Search: