Topic: The state of technology
Anonymous A started this discussion 8 hours ago #139,208
"Ooga booga! Computer advanced, computer make AI! Durr… more computer = more big smart! Me make biggest computer. Me make computer size of manhattan. Me defeat china with big computer."Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 8 hours ago, 47 seconds later[^] [v] #1,471,243
Sam Altman small brain. Sam Altman spend 10 trillion on big computer. Me big brain, me spend 100 trillion on big computer.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 8 hours ago, 1 minute later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,244
Huh? Computation efficiency? Algorithm optimization? What the fuck? Who the fuck is this nerd? Get this math shit out my face. Fuck you. Big model better!Sir Carves-A-Lot !nFL78DnUTg joined in and replied with this 8 hours ago, 5 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,245
Toby Carvery uses the latest in meat-carving technology.Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 6 hours ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,253
More hardware will take up more space.
@1,471,244 (A)
When it gets optimized you still have more output if you built out a lot of data centers.
@1,471,244 (A)
When it gets optimized you still have more output if you built out a lot of data centers.
boof joined in and replied with this 6 hours ago, 27 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,258
I bet that shitty looking land used to have a lot of good plants on it, maybe trees
Anonymous C replied with this 6 hours ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,262
@previous (boof)
Fake outrage, if they built gardens on the roof you people would still sling your robophobic rhetoric.
Fake outrage, if they built gardens on the roof you people would still sling your robophobic rhetoric.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 5 hours ago, 28 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,264
@1,471,253 (C)
> When it gets optimized you still have more output if you built out a lot of data centers.
Stupid take. We don’t need to maximize the output for the sake of maximizing output, especially when those data centers need energy and we already have a problem with climate change.
> When it gets optimized you still have more output if you built out a lot of data centers.
Stupid take. We don’t need to maximize the output for the sake of maximizing output, especially when those data centers need energy and we already have a problem with climate change.
Anonymous E double-posted this 5 hours ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,265
Right now 5% of energy in the United States goes to data centers. That’s the equivalent of 17 million people. By 2030 it will reach 10%. If we’re at war in the Middle East, the price of oil is increasing, the cost of living is going up, we have a climate problem, why tf do we need to build a bunch of warehouses full of GPUs generating worthless AI slop for grifters to flood social media with? To defeat China?
Anonymous E triple-posted this 5 hours ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,266
And what’s the plan exactly? Replace all workers with AI. Then what? The GDP increases?The majority of US GDP is driven by consumer spending. If households don’t earn wages, there’s no consumer spending, and there’s no economy. How does that work? It makes absolutely no sense unless you create a completely socialist economy.
Anonymous E quadruple-posted this 5 hours ago, 51 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,267
But then if we do that, wtf was defeating China about if the end result is we go full commie?
Anonymous C replied with this 5 hours ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,268
@1,471,266 (E)
If you spent a moment to actually think about it, the money doesn't just disappear, so wherever it does get spent is what replaces it.
If you spent a moment to actually think about it, the money doesn't just disappear, so wherever it does get spent is what replaces it.
(Edited 42 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 5 hours ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,269
@previous (C)
Money has no intrinsic value beyond the value which we collectively believe that it has. If you increase production using AI to create a post scarcity economy, money has no value.
Money has no intrinsic value beyond the value which we collectively believe that it has. If you increase production using AI to create a post scarcity economy, money has no value.
Anonymous E double-posted this 5 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,270
For instance, you buy a video game or a movie because anyone can’t just make their own video game or movie so that’s an economic transaction. If anyone can generate any video game or movie they can imagine, there is no longer a reason for anyone to pay for video games or movies. If you take that logic, and you extend it to everything humans produce, you wind up with a situation where it doesn’t make sense for anyone to pay for anything. That’s not a capitalist economy, that’s communism.
Anonymous E triple-posted this 5 hours ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,271
Of course that relies on AI replacing 100% of human labor, which I don’t believe in, but the people building all these data centers believe that it will, that’s why they’re doing it.
Anonymous C replied with this 5 hours ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,272
@1,471,269 (E)
You said there was no economy if AI replaces workers and cuts consumer spending.
There will still be an economy, people won't hand over their private property, and after every time some company lays off employees everyone still wants to have money.
They always find some new project they want to spend money on, and that will drive the economy even if they fired thousands the day before. Money still exists, and it still moves around.
You said there was no economy if AI replaces workers and cuts consumer spending.
There will still be an economy, people won't hand over their private property, and after every time some company lays off employees everyone still wants to have money.
They always find some new project they want to spend money on, and that will drive the economy even if they fired thousands the day before. Money still exists, and it still moves around.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 hours ago, 36 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,273
Although, perhaps like the utopian idea of communism, maybe this idea of replacing all human labor to create a capitalist utopia where one person has all the wealth and everybody else is destitute but somehow pays their AI subscription despite being unemployed actually won’t work. How will it fail? No idea, but the logical extreme is obviously a state that can’t exist.
Anonymous C replied with this 5 hours ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,274
@1,471,270 (E)
What about when you want physical goods?
If all the jobs are automated, but you can get money by selling your anus, and you can trade money for food then you will probably take the job.
What about when you want physical goods?
If all the jobs are automated, but you can get money by selling your anus, and you can trade money for food then you will probably take the job.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 hours ago, 51 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,275
@1,471,272 (C)
An economy that consists of jobless people selling their land to hyperscalers selling AI subscriptions to people who can’t afford it isn’t an economy.
An economy that consists of jobless people selling their land to hyperscalers selling AI subscriptions to people who can’t afford it isn’t an economy.
Anonymous E double-posted this 5 hours ago, 54 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,276
Anonymous C replied with this 5 hours ago, 12 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,277
Anonymous C double-posted this 5 hours ago, 36 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,278
Anonymous E replied with this 5 hours ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,279
@1,471,277 (C)
No, it’s literally not an economy. That can’t exist. You can’t have an economy where firms with no customers buy up a finite resource from people with no income. That’s not sustainable.
No, it’s literally not an economy. That can’t exist. You can’t have an economy where firms with no customers buy up a finite resource from people with no income. That’s not sustainable.
Anonymous E double-posted this 5 hours ago, 28 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,280
Anonymous E triple-posted this 5 hours ago, 18 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,281
A future where you don’t exist is a future where you didn’t win.
Anonymous C replied with this 5 hours ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,282
@1,471,279 (E)
> You can’t have an economy where firms with no customers buy up a finite resource from people with no income. That’s not sustainable.
They do have customers, they provide services for others who have money.
Before you might sell cast steel to a help make a car, but now it's for another billionaire's rocketship. There's still money out there demanding products, but they will be different than before.
At what point do you think it suddenly collapses?
@1,471,280 (E)
No, I didn't say that.
The difference between is/ought statements is another concept lefties refuse to learn. Keep pretending not to understand, make discourse impossible.
> You can’t have an economy where firms with no customers buy up a finite resource from people with no income. That’s not sustainable.
They do have customers, they provide services for others who have money.
Before you might sell cast steel to a help make a car, but now it's for another billionaire's rocketship. There's still money out there demanding products, but they will be different than before.
At what point do you think it suddenly collapses?
@1,471,280 (E)
No, I didn't say that.
The difference between is/ought statements is another concept lefties refuse to learn. Keep pretending not to understand, make discourse impossible.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 5 hours ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,283
@previous (C)
If this is truly the future you want, you could achieve it with a bullet to the head much faster with far less effort.
If this is truly the future you want, you could achieve it with a bullet to the head much faster with far less effort.
Anonymous C replied with this 5 hours ago, 1 second later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,284
@1,471,281 (E)
If you subscribe to magical thinking and decide it won't happen because it's uncomfortable to think about then you make it very hard to react appropriately.
If you subscribe to magical thinking and decide it won't happen because it's uncomfortable to think about then you make it very hard to react appropriately.
Anonymous C double-posted this 5 hours ago, 42 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,285
@1,471,283 (E)
You're repeating the same strawman I just called out.
@1,471,282 (C)
> No, I didn't say that.
> The difference between is/ought statements is another concept lefties refuse to learn. Keep pretending not to understand, make discourse impossible.
You're repeating the same strawman I just called out.
@1,471,282 (C)
> No, I didn't say that.
> The difference between is/ought statements is another concept lefties refuse to learn. Keep pretending not to understand, make discourse impossible.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 3 hours ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,471,288
It might be time to consider alternative economies - gonna suck when we're all homeless though (sorry; "unhoused").