Coal is a stopgap for china. Until their renewables expansion can sustain their growth targets. They are being very veey aggresive in renewables until then to make that happen
One bellweather reason for this state being impressive is that this is china's domestic market demonstrating the buying power needed to fuel private innovation
This used to be something only the US could do. China always had the population. But it wasnt rich enough to create local demand. Now it can and that creates a flywheel effect of feuling its own innovation, like EVs, LLMs, reusable rockets, sattelite ISPs, and all the other thingsthe US prides itself on.
And eventually it might even make novel things the US or anyone else hasnt even made yet. If that happens then the american empire is truly over
I'm pretty sure we're witnessing the accelerating confirmation of this right now, for all the reasons you've already stated. The US still has some niches at which it's ahead, but China is a mere intellectual property theft away from being able to pwn those areas as well (rightly, or likely wrongly, but even 'wrongly' by any law is 'rightly' by China's point of view, same as plenty of US decisions of late - the lens makes all the difference).
Thats easy: service providers can train on the spftware to offer the service. Its literally what theyre for. Redhat didnt make linux but charges a reasonable price to support it. Like lets open source slack or something, and enterprises could self host it, or get it served by one of the service providers that pop up. And if there are bugs that are reported, then the service provider could use AI to fix them and upstream the changes so all the users benefit from it
The difference will be that they can have rent seeking practices when the software itself cant be taken hostage. They'll charge for the service and wont leech off the user for way more money than they deserve for making and maintaining the software
Theres so many expense trackers out there and theres one single thing preventing them from just taking over and solving a huge part of personal finance
The data entry. Its not feasible to take up a parttime job as a data entry clerk, not even to have such great vsiibility over your finances. What we need is the data thats generated at the POS (including and itemized reciept) to flow fully through the system and be accesibke to you so you can log it in these apps and make financial decisions with it.
I know plaid does this at the transaction level, which is a grwat start even if we dont have itemized reciepts but i wonder why that hasnt taken over? Why doesnt everyone use an expense tracker integrated with plaid?
Until the data pipeline issue is solved, these crud apps with data viz on top will never be able to follow through on their potential value
^ this. its the only reason i bother to pay for a buget/money app. none of these OS ones have any real integration for automatic syncing. and honestly, even those like plaid and such all have tons of issues with various providers, so it's an imperfect system.
Your still doing data entry. You have to take photos of the reciepts and validate that it read them right. That doesnt scale.
And generally if youre resorting to taking a photo of a printed piece of paper you gotta have the ambition to try to get the info from the computer that printed it
agree. building a tracker is easy but getting the data is the pain point... I am using plaid but it doesn't support all the banks, not to mention tracking expense not paid by cards.
Deserved. word2vec is a beautiful peice of science. The hypothesis behind it was so amazing. I kinda feel like everything else in LLMs (including the attention mechanism itself) is just engineering around the representation learning breakthrough that word2vec demonstrated
And with applications far outside the original scope, which I think is one of the hallmarks of foundational discoveries. As soon as you have that one puzzle piece a whole lot of other stuff comes into focus.
I think this analogy breaks down when considering that the agricultural revolution gave regular people more time to demand new things, but also more time to produce new things, and thus maintained or even increased their economic leverage
> My inability to produce food is economically almost irrelevant. What matters is that I can consume it, enjoy it, develop tastes for it, and devote my energies to other things.
What the author misses is that what mattered more was that people could now produce more things. People were free from manual labour to perform intellectual labour. But what do people do to produce things when intellectual labour is automated? And with emboddied AI, skilled manual labour too?
You need to produce things to be able to reap the fruits of economic progress. Thats what most working people did after the agricultural revolution. What will we produce in a post AI world? And if only the people who own AI will be able to produce things, then why would they give us any power or leverage in the economy?
You can focus on the word, but the substance is actually what I was more interested in.
Most people living today take it for granted that modern "work" is the way it is and the way it should be. Few people have the context of understanding that modern work, where you directly trade labor for money and money for the goods and services you need to live, and where your identity and social standing is largely based on your profession, is something only a minority of human beings have experienced.
In my experience, most people seem to treat human development as a one-way spear of progress. The dawn of agriculture, the industrial revolution, etc. are all just stops on a linear path that is the right path.
But maybe it's just a dead end. "Primitive" hunter-gatherer societies survived for way longer than our modern-day society has existed, and things aren't looking so promising for us right now.
> In my experience, most people seem to treat human development as a one-way spear of progress. > But maybe it's just a dead end.
You're assuming "human development" is some dark force that controls humans but it's not controllable by them, I would describe this as a slightly amusing occultist belief.
Of course, the exact opposite is true, if humans fail to maintain the straight spear of progress it will be their fault and folly, because, objectively, it isn't even hard to maintain.
The folly is believing that humans are the tip of the only branch that matters to the tree.
Upwards of 99% of all species that have ever existed on earth are now extinct. Human life is so special and important to us because...we're human. But our survival is not guaranteed, and for all of our truly unique attributes and advantages, we're statistically just as likely to reach the same outcome as the vast, vast majority of every other species.
> Upwards of 99% of all species that have ever existed on earth are now extinct.
And? The only conclusion I can draw, is that humans need to stop warring with each other and focus on global security and prosperity for all, even if there's only 1% chance of achieving it, that's where all of our efforts should go... but I'm not a death-cult believer, so what do I know.
> The folly is believing that humans are the tip of the only branch that matters to the tree.
Your "tree" resembles a Kali of mass-murder with the consciousness and agency necessary to exterminate any life on earth. Actually it's just chance and the chances are both favorable for humans and highly improvable with sufficient effort - that isn't hard to see when death-cult thinking is done away with.
> The only conclusion I can draw, is that humans need to stop warring with each other and focus on global security and prosperity for all...
I'd love for that too, but there's very little evidence to support the notion that this is going to happen.
None of my comments here have celebrated my somber expectations for humanity, so the mere fact that you've basically called me a "death-cult believer" simply because I'm less hopeful about our prospects is itself evidence of just how unrealistic Utopia is.
I mean, if we can't even keep from denigrating random strangers in online discussions, what makes you think we're going to stop fighting and figuring out how we can take care of each other?
> I mean, if we can't even keep from denigrating random strangers in online discussions
I gather, because of my insinuations your faith in humanity sank to a new low? It took too little, too fast, what happened to "sticks and stones"? Being too sensitive is the foundation of conflict, it prevents the straight talk necessary for mutual understanding.
> None of my comments here have celebrated my somber expectations for humanity
Your expectations for humanity can only be based on what you expect from yourself, a person who projects his lack of positive ideas to all of humanity should at least be aware of that fact and not try to project the same despair to everyone else - this suggestion should not be viewed as controversial or offensive.
> what makes you think we're going to stop fighting and figuring out how we can take care of each other?
The fact that we haven't explored the vast majority of available options. It will happen when we stop confusing singing Kumbaya with just living in peace - two vastly different notions, e.g. the fact that someone felt offended doesn't mean he should go to war...
> I gather, because of my insinuations your faith in humanity sank to a new low? It took too little, too fast, what happened to "sticks and stones"? Being too sensitive is the foundation of conflict, it prevents the straight talk necessary for mutual understanding.
No, your insinuations simply confirmed what I've observed throughout life: even people with the highest of ideals and noblest of visions engage in the behavior that works in opposition to the world they want, and they're just as apt to blame others for the conflict they help stoke.
You can call people who have a different world view names, like "death-cult believers", but it should be patently obvious to you that this contributes nothing to the conversation and is far more likely to create the very animosity and conflict you complain about than it is peaceful, useful dialog.
And by the way, pretending that people should live by "sticks and stones" and telling yourself people who don't agree with you are just too "sensitive" is just a way for you to avoid taking responsibility for your contribution to the imperfect world you live in.
> even people with the highest of ideals and noblest of visions engage in the behavior that works in opposition to the world they want,
People offended by the truth don't work in opposition to good ideas, they're useless anyway, the sooner they reveal their inability to engage with anything of significance - the better.
> And by the way, pretending that people should live by "sticks and stones" and telling yourself people who don't agree with you are just too "sensitive"
I referred to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". Apparently, you're unaware of this expression which reveals a lot about you.
People changing the subject to how offended they are, correlates with their lack of sensible ideas. It also correlates with the desire to divert the conversation into insignificant personal posturing and away from anything productive. I'm glad you illustrated that point here.
How quickly we've gone from "humans need to stop warring with each other and focus on global security and prosperity for all" to "people offended by the truth don't work in opposition to good ideas, they're useless anyway".
Your comments here are both humorous and sad. To believe you love humanity while having such disdain for your fellow human beings who constitute it simply because many of them won't agree with your "truth".
The good news is you can take solace in the fact that you're in good company. Many of the world's greatest atrocities have been instigated by individuals who were convinced that saving the world required dealing with large groups of people they thought "useless" and "unproductive".
> How quickly we've gone from "humans need to stop warring with each other and focus on global security and prosperity for all" to "people offended by the truth don't work in opposition to good ideas, they're useless anyway".
As I said, the quicker, the merrier - because both are true and understanding that saves time for more productive endeavors.
Why do you keep whining anyway, if there's no hope for humanity, there's no hope for you either, as a confused part of it, it's that simple. Just stay away and don't muddy the waters as some hypersensitive primadonna, with apologies to primadonnas everywhere.
> To believe you love humanity while having such disdain for your fellow human beings
What disdain? You see disdain where there are jobs to be done, but it's all in your head. You're the definition of self-fulfilling prophecy, you've locked yourself in your own prison of despair and hypersensitivity, nobody is doing anything to you, but you keep whining and being "sad', craving to lock everyone in your self-built prison too, out of envy.
> You're the definition of self-fulfilling prophecy, you've locked yourself in your own prison of despair and hypersensitivity, nobody is doing anything to you, but you keep whining and being "sad', craving to lock everyone in your self-built prison too, out of envy.
Speaking of "saving time" and "productive endeavors"...
If you believe what you've written, the most useful thing you could do is to reflect on why you've chosen to spend your time interacting with me.
I mean, I didn't engage you. You responded to a comment of mine, and then you proceeded to keep engaging in what is clearly a dead-end dialog with a useless internet stranger. There must be a reason for that, no?
> the most useful thing you could do is to reflect on why you've chosen to spend your time interacting with me.
I don't have to reflect, I knew why before I started.
> You responded to a comment of mine, and then you proceeded to keep engaging in what is clearly a dead-end dialog with a useless internet stranger.
The "dead-end dialog" should be your point of view, you're the one who thinks that some external force determines the fate of humans regardless of what they think or do. Doing nothing makes sense only within that point of view.
> There must be a reason for that, no?
Of course there is, if I think that something can be done to improve the human condition I would try to study the impediments to it. One of those is the doomerism which is now in vogue and also used by people with much higher social standing than the usual internet strangers.
> Of course there is, if I think that something can be done to improve the human condition I would try to study the impediments to it.
But what are you "studying"? You haven't actually tried to engage with my perspective in a good-faith manner. You haven't asked any questions, and questions are critical for any serious study.
Instead, you denigrated me for my perspective from your very first comment ("death-cult believer"), suggested people like me are "useless", claimed I am unable "to engage with anything of significance", and even admitted that this is not a productive endeavor.
With all due respect, it seems to me you should worry less about improving the human condition in the abstract and prioritize how you might actually make a real contribution to the human condition. Because name-calling, belittling and arguing don't make the world a better place, and certainly aren't aligned to the ideal of peace, security and prosperity for all.
My humble suggestion: the simplest and most immediate way you could improve the world around you is to consider how you treat the people you interact with.
> You haven't actually tried to engage with my perspective in a good-faith manner.
No good faith manners are possible with your style of arguing, you didn't answer any of my arguments but you did divert the conversation away from the real issues we started with and into "I'm so injured because you're such a bad person" posturing. Next, I had to figure out how far it'd go and if anything new would come out of it.
> Instead, you denigrated me for my perspective from your very first comment ("death-cult believer")
Nothing new came out, you kept doing it and you will keep doing till the end of times you so desire.
However, while talking to you, I did come across some useful new perspectives, so I'm satisfied with the results and I thank you for your participation, really, I mean it.
I'm sure that many aspects of work and specialization are as old as humanity itself. Don't you think there was one guy in the tribe who was really good at starting fires, one woman who knew where to find the good berries, one guy who was the best at fixing spears, and some people who weren't that good at anything so they just joined the effort wherever they were needed? You don't have to have a physical exchange of currency or a 40hr desk job for that to be true.
You can read up on hunter-gatherer societies if you're interested.
Labor and specialization are not unique to modern-day work. Both hunter-gatherer societies and our modern industrial society have labor and specialization. But they function in completely different ways.
Specialization in industrial society is much more complex whereas in hunter-gatherer societies it is generally based on age and gender. Hunter-gatherer societies are generally more egalitarian, there is more skill overlap between members of the group, expertise is leveraged in less formal and less institutionalized ways, learning is more distributed and knowledge is more likely to be treated as communal.
My comment was clearly looking at the historical and anthropological context, and raising the philosophical question about whether modern work is ideal and ever was sustainable.
But if you want to have a less philosophical and more pragmatic discussion, I'd raise the issue of the billions of people who count themselves among the "working poor." For billions of people, modern work doesn't guarantee that you won't be poor.
Agreed, but so far the picture painted around mass AI adoption looks like it will make that situation worse not better. So until a viable alternative is produced people will be very concerned about loosing work.
People should consider the possibility that a viable alternative isn't coming, and that humanity is entering a very dark period (on multiple fronts) that there's no guarantee it will survive.
Article misses to mention that in past revolutions the potential value was in the people. With AI the potential value is inside objects (computers) so it is easier to control and centralize, easier than value in humans. No one said more advanced models in the future will be available to anyone. I feel like this revolution will go opposite way, we will go back to mercantillism or whatever.
Disagree - the article made the point very clearly that pre-Mercantilism the value was in the land, not the people (who were low-value agricultural workers at best). Mercantilism was the revolution that made people valuable.
I suspect the author would respond with some form of "displaced people without capital will take on roles in the relational economy, or as human liability for the robots." I agree the material leverage of such jobs seems radically diminished.
Surely it will also free people up to apply their intelligence (or stupidity) towards other things.
It's concerning because there is already way too much 'intelligence' in this society and most of it is used to propagate falsehoods, irrationality and to manipulate others in counter-productive ways. I hope AI educates people and doesn't merely steer them down deeper into their echo-chambers. That said, I also really hope that AI doesn't just bring everyone into alignment and agreement about ideas which aren't true. There are significant threats with both extremes.
> I hope AI educates people and doesn't merely steer them down deeper into their echo-chambers.
Honestly, it feels like there is exceptionally little incentive to learn anything deeply anymore because the payoff might never be there.
I know, I know, do it because you love it or you find it interesting. Sure, I will to the degree that I love it or find it interesting. But I find even the incentives on that have changed weirdly enough.
Well, regarding manual labour. Putting aisde the "is working with AI drying out your brain" discussion... Quite frankly, even fast touch-typists like me will never outpace an LLM write a few obvious functions... Isn't that also more or less the same thing as being freed of manual labour. How much of the thinking/design process your outsource to your LLM is a totally different discussion. See vibe-coding vs "pair" programming. But all that aside, I very much feel like LLMs are pretty much saving me a lot of manual typing.
I think you did not read the post, or else missed its point entirely. VGR speaks directly to the induced demand of greater access to intelligence, namely, that people may redouble their efforts given that now so many more things are within reach with the aid of AI.
I did read it. The question is will you have the aid of AI? If the means of production get decoupled from a human being, then will normal people even have the respurces to afford access to AI to be able to make things? How would you afford it? You cant produce anything of value to sell to anyone since AI can just male whatever your making
If AI keeps going the way the author thinks (which isnt guaranteed) then there will come a point where the productivity of those who can afford to have access to AI will start becoming infinitely more than those who do not, and then those without AI are locked in the permanent underclass. Not much is within your reach then
>But what do people do to produce things when intellectual labour is automated?
They do what AI can't do, entrepreneurialism, because AI doesn't have property rights. Like back to the 1800s when most Americans were self-employed, not working for large corporations, because corporate cog-in-the-machine work can be done better by AI. With AI it's far easier to run your own business than at any time in history.
Are you really arguing the singular benefit of being human that AI can't take away is a specific concept of law?
And then say that running your business with AI is easier than ever?
So if we are reduced to running our own business, and AI can do that pretty good, what do we do?
If he is that does seem like a reasonable claim. There is precedent in concepts like citizenship, for example. Property rights. Inheritance. A lot of things give people advantages purely because that is how the legal superstructure works without reference to any inherent imbalance in economic or social power.
Not really, no.
The question is not what distinguishes us at some point in time in some scenario, but what AI cannot take away, and changing a few laws seems not too far fetched.
Especially because the people in charge of AI do seem pretty unscrupulous and powerful to me, and there is no sign of that influence being reigned in.
> back to the 1800s when most Americans were self-employed
They were mainly wage employees and factory workers by the end of that century due to industrialization. And "AI" is the industrialization of intellectual work.
> far easier to run your own business than at any time in history.
But let me play the devil's advocate and argue the point: who will the business sell to, if most people are not in a position with wealth to spare to buy from your business?
... What do you believe 1800 America was like? Because it was govt backed credit sales, land grants and pre emption rights that gave the land to people. The "self employment" was subsistence agriculture on the granted land in the frontier. The land was granted by a mechanism very similar to the volkisch lebensraum.
Clearly a relevant and replicable analogy to AI making entrepreneurship easier /s
There is no rethinking the path we're on. It's unsteerable. I say so because I think you can't convince people to steer it away from a potentially bad outcome faster than that outcome is arriving.
I think the ideal amount of meth in a society is zero. Surely you wouldnt mind consenting to a daily cavity search to accomplish that, now would you? Your not some kind of meth dealer right?
It sets the terms of engagement. You cant expect the defender in a war to follow a code of ethics thay the aggressor has wiped their ass with. Its just hypocritical
reply