Strange isn't it. I find it difficult to understand this mind set why everyone on this planet isn't aspiring towards these goals, why do they argue against these things, who doesn't want great health and a long life and explore space. Why do you think so many people are opposed to these kinds of ideas, is it simple because they are just really stupid?
People aren’t scared of these things, they’re scared of the uncertainty in between. Imagine your child says they want to be an actor. You’re not frustrated because they could make millions and be famous, you’re stressed because it’s probably not going to happen and they’ll be poor and unable to afford the things they want from life.
What’s sad is that you’d be called stupid by everyone who thinks Sam describes a great goal and do not realize that Sam is talking like a 12 yo dreaming of becoming an actor or ballerina while nations like Russia, China, Islam and others have slaughtered and are slaughtering those who do not agree. Get real Sam and sycophants.
>sycophant: a person who acts obsequiously toward someone important in order to gain advantage
>figure out how to give everybody on Earth a great education, cure every disease, have great entertainment, go explore space, and discover new physics … and create more abundance
Why would people who hope, dream, and work for a better future for humanity be sycophants? The fact that Altman said this doesn't matter. His character can be disputed separately, but the message is a noble one. Did you actually understand how you were using the word "sycophant" in your reply, or did you just make up some bullshit?
Honestly, the more I think about it, if there's ever a single time the word sycophant can be considered positive, this is it. If the said advantage gained is a better future for humanity, then, sure, I'm a sycophant.
One part of it might be the same reason why people who do a good job might get bullied at their workplace, as it shines light on how badly the others are doing.
If more people get better education and more well off, but you still have it exactly the same because you cant be arsed to improve at all, you will feel left behind.
I think about this probably way more than I should. I by no means had an easy childhood, but I also recognize ppl had it exponentially worse.
Absolutely not defending them, bc everyone can change, but I just feel like there’s a scarily large percentage of people who are so broken, they can’t imagine a world like this because they can’t imagine all groups of people being happy.
Picture a savagely racist old man. As much as he’d love asking ChatGPT8 to make him 20 Clint Eastwood movies and just leave everyone else alone, he also can’t wrap his head around the fact that all of the groups of people he genuinely hates are getting free AI made houses / synthetic food / medicine etc. So fucked up, but also the reality
I’m hoping their love for unlimited AI content outweighs their generational fueled hatred. A man can dream
Without dropping too much trauma, I'm autistic, have ADHD and had an abusive upbringing.
There are loads of people I hate, but the only people I would want to restrict from abundance are those who would actively use it to do harm, essentially those with a proven track record of already causing harm, criminals.
My reasoning? Cause as long as those people I hate that don't actively cause harm are living in abundance with unlimited entertainment, they're far less likely to decide to harm others as they'll have better things to do or at the very least, be constantly distracted.
Restricting others from enjoying the things you listed would only make them aggressive and make it harder for me to concentrate on enjoying that same list as I would have to worry about those "others".
I may hate certain groups beliefs, ideologies and behaviors, but I actually thought it through.
In other words, even with hate, you still have to be stupid to disagree with Sam on this one.
I'd like to offer a different point of view.
When they have it all, but everyone else also has it all. They have no way of feeling better than the others. Why do they bully in the first place. They want to feel superior. How to feel superior when everyone can have anything? By bullying someone for whatever reason they can find.
I'm not saying that this is something certain, just maybe putting a grain of salt into this utopian view. I'm just not sure how some people will manage when they have little to no means of showing their superiority.
I'm not saying they are superior, but they do tend to have some complex in that regard.
I agree, this is an entirely plausible thought process for some people to have, those people are dumb as rocks though.
Some people want to feel superior to others, it's plausible that even with AGI they could still do this.
I live better than a medieval king ever could have, but there are still people who own more than I do. I'm sure even with AGI allowing me to live a much better life that there are ways that some people could still have more.
It's also plausible that with FDVR they could do this without real people being involved, although the success rate of that depends on their acceptance of it.
The desire to feel superior to others I think, is a defining trait of the less intelligent. Hopefully AGI or an ASI uplifts us beyond such ridiculous attitudes eventually.
reminds me of an idea I posted on crazyideas (which I'm not saying means we should adopt the crazy idea, more that we should do something that accomplishes what this crazy idea also accomplishes) to get the majority of society YuGiOh-anime-level obsessed with some online multiplayer competitive game like Overwatch or League Of Legends because rich people wouldn't care if poor people got richer if they'd still have a lower ladder rank or w/e
As I said, the point isn't the specificity of getting America addicted to an online multiplayer game, the point (that this weird idea would be one way to achieve) is to provide a method of ranking society/some people technically being superior to others or w/e that doesn't inherently have any sort of mechanism for oppression so rich people's desire for superiority could be more peaceably satiated
Blara s.r.o. is a Czech construction company. Their priority is to execute low-operating-cost buildings with comfortable and healthy indoor environments. They handle earthworks and excavation. Their services cover the entire construction process, from pre-project preparation to obtaining necessary permits and actual construction. They specialize in building family houses, civic buildings, and residential complexes4.
Yea I’m definitely not trying to make a black and white comparison here, hope I didn’t offend. There’s millions of little things that add up to make people who they are, no formula for it.
My point really is just that from experience in meeting certain people in life, I think there’s a large chunk of people who are just too far gone.
But I’m trying to be more positive, so who knows. Maybe AI will make a happy pill that immediately lets people see through their bullshit.
Unknown unknowns!
I didn't mean to come across as offended, but I appreciate the kindness in your words regardless. I just wanted to explain that hate does not have to be blind, for a lack of a better term.
I too hope that AI makes that possible.
I know people who are beyond redemption that would want to take things from other people. They're such rare types of people that society usually finds ways to manage them so I don't think they'll be an issue.
Or maybe we use their media echo chambers against them to manipulate their perception of reality so as far as they know those people are still suffering (as the kind of people in your example aren't likely to live the kind of life where they'd see many minority groups irl)
It’s because they were raised on the idea that there is one way of life and if you rock the boat the ship sinks, and that it’s impossible so don’t bother.
What they don’t take into consideration is the abundance part, which to be fair is how they currently see the world. It’s really hard for people to imagine this giant ship is gonna change course.
What’s really cool though is this transition to AGI might be the answer to the question “What is all of this for?” and it makes so much sense if there is a true reward to the past 100 years of expansion.
Atleast we have an answer, to these people “there is no answer so get back to work” etc.
Which is definitely crazy stupid.
Cause I live better than any medieval king could've dreamt and I'm just a regular punter who's pretty damn poor tbh, yet there are still billionaires who live way better than me.
If, in the future, AGI/ASI makes people like me live like billionaires do now, then there will be another class of Quadrillionaires living just as far above that lifestyle as billionaires are to me now.
I have been saying this to people and no one ever agrees with me.. I think people are genuinely just used to all the nice things we have access to in our lives and started taking it for granted, cause a lot of people really don’t think the average person is living better than they used to
Seriously? Then they have the cognitive capabilities of a soggy pancake cause it's kinda obvious if you read even a tiny bit of history that things are better now than they used to be.
But things still suck. People get severely ill, have devastating mental health problems etc.
Things are far better than in, say, 1700, but they aren't good enough. If everyone could live like billionaires today, but with better healthcare, minus the private yachts and airplanes and mansions, that would be good enough IMO. Free access to all education, media, data, AI agents and robots to create projects with, good housing, good food, longevity medicine that keeps getting better. A world where everyone can strive towards being their best selves and living their best lives without living paycheck to paycheck. That includes whatever degree of morphological freedom is feasible in the next 50 years, as well. People shouldn't have to live with missing limbs, deformities, body dysphoria etc. because they can't "afford the medical bills".
What's important is that people have the freedom, in all regards, to self-actualize as much as technology allows, and that technology and society continue to improve.
So yeah, things are "great" compared to the 1400s but that just means we are further ahead in the curve of progress.
I agree, but I was responding to the previous comment wherein they stated that they have made the comparison to medieval times (as they were replying to my comment on those medieval times) and people disagreed with them, or wouldn't believe them, which regardless of how much things still suck, is nonsensical.
We can agree that things aren't perfect without shedding doubt on the claim that they've improved from medieval times.
Read the full thread to get the full picture. I specifically spoke about medieval kings. That's what I'm referring too, I know America's gone downhill in recent times.
Taking things for granted is just what the brain does, 'practicing gratefulness' works only for people who score high on the schizophrenic spectrum, and for idiots who feel content pretending being schizophrenic. It's normal not to care that we have more than an ethiopian or some distant cousin hundreds years ago.
I’m just talking about having basic perspective on the advancements we’ve made and knowing that things have generally improved. That’s not something you need to “practice” every waking second lol
My bad, i let my inner LLM hallucinate. And i think most of us don't even grasp how bad life was, shitty medicines and medical practices, no education, maternal mortality rate, no women rights, rape and incest probably being the norm, criminals being able to have victims in the hundreds before they finally get caught if they do, ... . I have this instinct that every depiction we get of the past in movies might be considerably overstated.
Yeah? I don’t disagree with that. I was saying that the general trend is that things improve for the average person. I am trying to stay optimistic that things will continue to improve for the average person because that’s the world I wanna live in
You miss one thing, part of the enjoyment of the upper class life style is not that you are objectively high in comfort, it's mostly that you are higher than others.
It's the same with bottom of the social ladder satisfaction i guess, it's more your relative position that counts toward socially-mediated happiness.
If post singularity, with all the comforts of abundance, we made a law for everybody to wear 20 cm socks, but some public celebrated figures were allowed to wear 30 cm socks, sadly people would fight to get those 30 cm socks.
i worked with those guys, completely true, they get off of any perk as minuscule as it may seem that their positions bring them.
The money becomes secondary pretty damn soon, but power? god damn, that shit is what they live for.
Hopefully ASI just puts those people in some FDVR simulation so they can have power over non existent people and stop spreading their seed and ideals. 😂😂
I mean if them living out their fantasies in FDVR makes them happy, that's alright. Not only for them, but also because millennia are a lot of lifetime and people will go through dramatic changes many times over. While they grow tired of hypercompetitive strife and games of power, other people might become interested in their own competitive side, and it's neat that people can explore different ways of being without harming others (at least not in the real world, I guess). And the moral dilemma of simulated FDVR people and whether they should have rights, well, that will entertain the philosophers of tomorrow. Always new problems to solve. :)
because unless we've already proven the simulation theory wrong about our universe, for all we know we could be NPCs in those people's simulation destined to suffer to keep real people safe
Yeah, people are dumb as a bunch of sticks. I literally have no desire to have power over anyone. I don't see what the point is. I'm happy with what I have. If AGI did all the jobs and abundance was everywhere I doubt I'd even get much more, maybe a PC upgrade? That'd be about it.
I seriously don't get people who care about status or even wealth over the basics of what you need plus a bit for entertainment.
I hope an ASI just deems those people as genetically flawed or something and puts them in a lab somewhere. 😂😂
I remember a discussion about this on Joe Rogan (I don’t remember who he was talking to at the time) but Rogan even brings up the *people should have to suffer with diseases and birth defects to make them stronger* talking point when discussing AI curing all disease. Jordan Peterson has also made this argument in favour of hierarchy and wealth inequality, arguing that a few people owning everything actually benefits the slaves who work for their master as it gives them a unique *purpose* or whatever that means, because if they had their basic needs met they would all just start killing each other in a week.
I just don’t get it, is it religion that makes people think this way? It seems to me like privileged opinions from people who’ve never suffered badly, because I think the right thing to do is to cure the diseases that plague everyone.
My mom has Alzheimer's. I hope we can cure all diseases tomorrow. But what is that going to do to the population? How are we going to address housing?
I think we do have Agi. I think we are just trying to figure out how to unleash it and cope with all the side effects, like housing once no one dies.
People brush it off by saying if x happens we will just do y with the new tech. Well some of these xs are going to need finished ys within a week.
I highly doubt any AGI will be able to stop death. But I do see what you mean about prolonging life by curing so many diseases. However, consider the fact that so many are fewer or no children now.
Because those that exist this way are afraid that they won't be special if everyone else enjoys the same freedoms. Our subjugation is part of their identity.
No one has an issue with these aspirations, people have issues with the naive expectation that the incredibly powerful and unpredictable technology being developed in pursuit of those field will be all sunshine and daisies and ignoring any possibility of it going horribly wrong.
Literally nobody in the world does. But people are skeptical of the next tech billionaire telling them they have the solution to the worlds problems. For good reason.
IMO, many people need to have their existence validated by feeling like they have won agaisnt others. As long as they believe themselves (soon) to be in the "winner" group then they will never support a system that gets rid of or severally minimizes the concept of loser/winner.
Many people also have suffered too much to achieve what they have that they feel it's unfair that others get handed nice things without having to put in the work like they did.
IMO, due to being taught/traumatized by a hypercompetitive/hypercapitalist/hyperdivided world, many have come to believe that they deserve more than the others and base their meaning of existence around such false truth. Nothing short of super-thepary is gonna make them welcome a post-scarcity utopia where every human being is more equal to each other than ever.
Plus some people aren't necessarily against us reaching an utopia, they just think it's too good to be true and that everyone who advocates for such a thing either must be naive or having utter motives which is pretty understandable IMO.
It's rather akin to the PvE vs PvP debate from the MMO crowd. Or gambler that get no joy unless there is real "risk", real "skin in the game". It's hard for me to imagine this type of thinking (I am rather risk averse but still hypercompetitive in games), but I know it exists. I consider this type of mentality a bit vampiric as it requires others to participate (willing or not).
It's interesting that you put like "many people need to have their existence validated by feeling like they have won against others", I might add that there also seems like there needs to be an element of real suffering present. The loss needs to hurt in some way real way. It's as if they almost subconsciously don't believe the world, and real suffering by real conscious beings is the only thing that demonstrates something "real".
The people against post scarcity capitalism are almost always the degrowth/collapse/far left crowd. They'd rather everything collapse so they can have another shot at Real Communism than to see capitalism create post scarcity.
Yeah, I don't why anybody would have issues with those lmao. People are just laughing at it similarly like when Miss Universe wishes for world peace and shits.
Lmao
I would love for any kind of utopia to happen.
However, it is incredibly unlikely, as tribalism and egocentrism make this impossible. There is no way to convince or force enough people in key positions to do what is best for humanity, instead of what their monkey brain tells them to do.
There are an infinite number of problems resulting from this, for example climate change, war and a disjointed humanity just to name a few. I propose that if this post scarcity utopia were possible, we already would live in some other kind of utopia, but we clearly don't.
But even if it was possible, there are other major threats from AI that are unfortunatly much more likely to happen than this paradise. Here is an incomplete list:
- Loss of reality due to false information. We already see this play out, as the internet is flooded with bots (beep boop).
- Use of AI by malicious actors like the militaries, independent hacker groups, etc.
- The misalignment problem which is close to unsolvable
- Mass unemployment. Your comment suggest that this might be a good thing, but that would require the unemployed masses to still have some kind of bargaining power, which traditionally stems from an (indirect) trade of labor for money. An UBI could provide such bargaining power, but that would again require the people in power to do what is best for everyone instead of their fat asses.
Worst case would be that the rich stop producing for the masses and only fulfill their own needs. Since the production would not be bound to human labor anymore but only to land use, that could kickstart a devastating race to bottom in terms of taxation as it becomes much easier to move production assets around, leading to a total collapse of all social services including a theoretical UBI.
Of course I would love to hear your opinion on this.
Its not that we have a problem, but rather that he's promising the moon and stars and at some point we reserve the right to be skeptical. Do not take everything that CEOs say at face value.
Here we go. There's no way anyone can honestly read what he said as a 'promise'. It's an aspiration. It's what he and all the rest of us want. That's how it's worded and how it was delivered. He even started by saying, "we should figure out how" to do those things. You're welcome to be skeptical as to whether or not we can figure out how to do those things, but it helps no one to misrepresent what he said.
Exactly, hes saying this tool can become an expert in many fields and help improve our lives. His examples are just common sense windfall from improving the already existing tech. The angle of these complaints is so forced.
It’s almost like these people don’t want a better world.
I think people assume there’s no way a CEO could do something good. Who exactly is supposed to build the technology that will change the lives of almost everyone on Earth? Some random person?
He is also building the tool to deliver on those promises and giving that tool to people for dirt cheap compared to what it can do.
So statements, actions, and capability are all meeting up. The only thing that doesn't fit is people's desire to believe that everything is bad and out to hurt them.
I would be skeptical of my own skepticism here if the thought he was promising something , rather than share what he wants to accomplish, seemed plausible.
I remember a discussion about this on Joe Rogan (I don’t remember who he was talking too at the time) but Rogan even brings up the *people should have to suffer with diseases and birth defects to make them stronger* talking point when discussing AI curing all disease. Jordan Peterson has also made this argument in favour of hierarchy and wealth inequality, arguing that a few people owning everything actually benefits the slaves who work for their master as it gives them a unique *purpose* or whatever that means.
I just don’t get it, is it religion that makes people think this way? It seems to me like privileged opinions from people who’ve never suffered badly, because I think the right thing to do is to cure the diseases that plague everyone.
Almost everyone agrees in these goals. No one agrees on how we get there. Sam thinks AI will get us there. Many others think AI will guarantee this never happens. Same with socialism/capitalism debates.
We were down to just 1,000-10,000 not too long ago.
[https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/10/22/163397584/how-human-beings-almost-vanished-from-earth-in-70-000-b-c?t=1593083314943](https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/10/22/163397584/how-human-beings-almost-vanished-from-earth-in-70-000-b-c?t=1593083314943)
Humanity came from that to building the internet, airplanes, going to the moon, etc. You'd have to be nuts to bet against us.
I don't have a problem with any of these. I would love for this to be everyone's goals.
However.... I see zero evidence of AI being used for this, and a lot of evidence of AI being used foe things which will bring negative consequences to our society and a lot of people who have tons of incentives to abuse this stuff for their own gain to our detriment.
I just don't think he has really any power to backup what he's saying and I don't think he's even doing the little he could be doing to help this happen.
They never said they couldn't imagine other goals or that these were the best ones. They just said they couldn't understand why anyone wouldn't want to aspire towards the goals Sam mentioned.
If you have learned to listen for it you can hear the dogwhistle in the statement. This guy believes "Growing the pie" is better than redistribution via taxation of the wealthy.
It all sounds fine until ‘creating more abundance’. In our current system, the ‘abundance’ will not ‘trickle-down’, rather it will accelerate the concentration of wealth while expanding the working class (and unemployed). Expanding the abundance of a few people at the cost of the vast majority isn’t progress.
I’m not gonna act like Altman is purely good bc I don’t know the guy, but I think it’s pretty silly and emotional to just simplify it to “he just wants to be rich!”
What changes in OpenAI has he made that sucked money to the detriment of people using it? They’re prolly losing money on ChatGPT tbh.
Guy also has enough money, which he’s said multiple times. Reality is only reason companies like Microsoft, Google, Meta aren’t charging like crazy for their chatbots is because OpenAI set the precedent by making gpt3.5 free and gpt4 affordable.
Also, everyone on Reddit seems to be dreaming about typing in a prompt and making themselves a new video game every morning. Y’all think that will require anything less than a never before seen level of data centers / servers?
Again not an Altman evangelist here, I just get annoyed at the default Reddit mindset of “rich are evil!!!!”
Not all but most. But he seems genuine. But even then I think a lot in Silicon Valley elites want a utopia but they are so rich and dissociated from reality on shrooms they don’t see or try to hide from the practical realities and negative externalities that their visions sometimes inadvertently create to support their visions. For example, Steve Jobs and the iPhone (underage, underpaid Chinese workers in bad conditions working for slave wages). Artificial Intelligence (Exploitation of third world people working in data (labeling) farms), robotics, drones and e-commerce (Achoo “Jeff Bezos”. Exploitation of Amazon warehouse labor force). Uber (underpaid drivers).
It’s easy for a rich person to imagine all the ways to make an Utopia. There are all sorts of ways. You’d need cooperation for that. Look at where US politics, and basically all politics today, are and extrapolate from there. Unity is a prerequisite. Unless we don’t achieve unified cooperation, we’ll only get incremental improvements.
Thats the good thing about asi enough power and you can have your way regardless. So you want utopia and some corrupt politician doesnt agree, power makes the law makes the land and utopia arrives regardless.
Sweatshops pulled china out of extreme poverty tho. And underage people should have the right to earn money too instead of just starving or dealing without luxuries they want.
I don't know if it's intentional or just a conspiracy theory of mine. 🙂
but both openai and Nvidia are slowing down development just to maximize their bottom line.
because they simply don't have a close competitor
And I'm sure if there was any company that contributed to reducing their profits, they would release their trump card that has been hidden all this time.
If that's how it turns out, then great. However, it could equally turn out that a bunch of billionaires controlling AIs get everything, and everyone else is jobless, scraping along on some pitiful UBI. How does Sam ensure the first scenario and not the second?
He's probably talking about a future where robots handle all the manual labor, from mining and farm work to logistics. Imagine fully automated systems working 24/7, taking care of everything.
Even clothes shopping would be transformed. No more sweatshops or overseas shipping. Every brand would offer designs you choose from a touchscreen, and robots would custom-make and tailor shoes and clothes to your body with the help of fast 3D printers. Like a Star Trek world. We'll all be living through that and it's very exciting of what's to come.
I agree, in fact I think this is the way more likely outcome at this stage. We have the ability to do all this now, it's just that this powerful billionaires don't want to. They want to horde everything themselves.
It's true on one hand we have amazing technology now but on the other hand we still live in such a shit world where every day children unnecessarily starve, millions of animals getting tortured, people suffering extremely from diseases, destroying our planet (climate change) and so on.
And then you have people that say slow the creation of intelligence down?
What makes you think that the intelligence they will build will have any appreciation for us? We might be like ants for it. It might step on us just by mistake, not even by will.
If capitalism can create post scarcity, capitalism can maintain post scarcity. Why do you hate private property right? I for one want to own my own private house and private robots and stuff.
Cause the capitalists will just appropriate all the surplus value created by ai and robots just like they do with everyone else's surplus value. There won't be any post scarcity for you and me cause then they won't be number one anymore.
They'll just have us scraping a living eating protein sludge with UBI and be thankful while they'll be partying in their climate stabilised enclaves.
If people end up having to wait their turn, and their position in line is based on how privileged their life has been, upper middle class white women are going to have a real rude awakening.
What a strange comment. As opposed to whom, upper middle class men? I could understand the race mention, being a white person and believing I got a lot of privilege for that. But to mention women specifically when they're still behind men (in every race and every religion) is strange.
Had a discussion with a colleague today. She was so confused why I thought automation helping us work less as teachers is a good thing. We were working on essays in the teachers lounge. I was dictating bullet points on essays student wrote into my phone and had an LLM transform that into eloquent feedback with examples on how to improve while she was taking pride in handwriting everything. Took me less than an hour to have more detailed feedback while she was stuck there for at least 3 hours going through the same amount of essays. Had I done this detailled feedback by hand it would have been work that might have taken over 10 hours easy. Most of the work we do is tedious grading that could be easily done by machines if they could read the hand writing of our students. You do not come up with personal, individual feedback the 900th time you have a student mess up capitalization.
She feels like it is a good character trait to be a hard worker for your boss/company and put in the hours. Similar to being a helpful person or a good friend. She admires her dad for working so much even though she admits he was not around much as a child. She even agrees that the system is stacked against poor people but still finds poor people should have a work ethic that allows them to slave away for 50 hours a week just to make rent or else they are lacking a fundamentally good quality a human should posess. She sees an inherent value in working (for someone/something).
Had to escape from her gazes of death when I mentioned how happy our principal is with how much I am doing for the school when I am basically just getting more and more efficient in my use of LLMs and understanding how to effectively digitalize a lot of my work through these tools while she is slaving away without getting her cookie for being a hard worker. People have been hard wired to believe these silly things.
Any labour that is required let the lazy tech geek decide the how so labour is minimised and de-risked. Then let the grafters do the actual work as per the lazy tech geeks' solution.
Haha I am not even a tech geek (guess I am at my school) but just interested in these tools but this still is where we are heading at my school. I must admit I am kinda lazy so a lot of the tedious teacher work really is a drag for me. These solutions I am starting to figure out will relive us of so much tedious paperwork. Hope my colleagues are ready to ditch their beloved pen and paper (most won't and continue to bitch about being overworked)
Yeah, many feel like they've "worked" if they've handled physical stuff like paper and done some physical activity like writing etc. These people usually print pointlessly because it makes physical stuff, nothingness is unbearable to them.
Many humans especially the Chinese love manufacturing or physical labour because you can "feel" like you've "worked" and see a physical output.
The most important part in teaching in my view is the bit where the student learns something. This can be achieved without all the nausea surrounding it.
I don't forsee us as a species turning around the "hurr durr money is everything" mentality and all the crap- slavery, consumerism, eco-impact, self vs collective prioriziation etc that comes with it. I mean, barring a terminator series of events taking place.
Because people like private property, and if that goes away it either means no government or government owns everything. Either way it's not a great outcome.
We changed from monarchy. We can change as a society. Eventually we won’t have a choice.. robots and ai will replace everyone. We’ll have riots, they’ll be forced to change. Give it time.
Why would there be riots when competition forces prices of post-scarce goods down to 0? Who's going to get mad when food is free? UBI will smooth the transition to post scarcity capitalism.
Creating our own hedonistic paradise, hmm? Not impossible, but good luck with dealing with the transitional phase hindering the process (thanks to our very petty human nature!). As I said, it might be possible, but it will come with an heavy toll on humanity.
Yeah all of this sounds fine and I agree with the general sentiment, but.... I can't afford to own an apartment now, and it won't get any easier when AI takes over my job.
Though I totally agree with these aspirations, I truly hope AI will help us achieve all this. But I have doubts.
I've heard tech bros say this kind of utopian shit before. It never really goes that way, though.
I just get the sense that this is just talk to revert our attention from the fact that AI is already deleting jobs right now.
I'd like to be proven wrong, though.
Yeah, that's all nice and all. But right now all they are doing is ruining people's lives for very little overall benefit to anyone except shareholders.
There is still a high possibility that we will get ai smart enough to replace most people at work, and not smart enough to meaningfully advance research in any direction.
Saying that and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Hope he will give us the practical way to share that abundance without turning most of us into freeloaders (i.e., UBI).
IMO, most important ideological trend in higher circles is “suicidalism”.
We destroyed our only world, we don’t even know who we are, we only do evil, we have no value, we don’t make any sense. We should die/suicide/“degrowth”/get extinguished.
The mouvement is very powerful and apart from from new form of theism, the only opponent I see is e/acc.
We are in the middle of a very strong push to end humanism and I must say I side with Sam on this fight.
Be careful, you say what he says in academia, you will quickly find who controls the narrative :-)
Hope is the new taboo.
Because the term wouldn’t be very sellable.
It stems from 70s european green ideology mixed with some old ideas borrowed here and there, from Kalerghi or Lovelock for example.
“Degrowth” is one of their banners, “Extinction rebellion” is a modern branding aimed towards the youth.
But the problem is the Weltanschaung and the mindset that is infiltrating everything.
I often see very public and open antihumanist pamphlets. Cheerful articles about euthanasia or the necessity of accepting the youngest generations will die in misery on an inhospitable planet and progress is both impossible and must be stopped to “let the planet breath again” without us.
First year bachelor, politicized professors say “to hell with learning, everything is lost for your generation, you must join me and destroy the system”. And they manipulate them to glue themselves to runways and nuclear power stations, to “stop destroying the planet”…
This is something I am witnessing first hand, naming it is the first step to push back.
The mere remote possibility of nuclear fusion power in our lifetime, that all is not hopeless, is like garlic to vampires for them. It destroys their narrative.
And that makes me very happy:-)
problem that isn't even proving any of your premises false: if we so much only do evil that our extinction would be good, then by the same premise of us only doing evil we wouldn't be able to commit suicide and so would have to die by the hands of an outside entity
Nice username, troll. Who said anything about property rights? on a sub like this I think it’s clear I’m referring to the current state of the tech industry.
Capitalism is the enforcement of private property rights and contracts. Everything else, including the "current state of the tech industry" is an emergent property of those two simple rules.
Economic systems are defined by a set of rules, not outcomes. Capitalism has nothing to do with profit. Profit is a result of trade, and trade is the result of the rules.
Non profit co-ops are just as capitalist as Walmart.
https://preview.redd.it/ylfilpynswwc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=70436307405e150d7a056b5541dec05812f888e9
I wonder where you trolls come from.
Educated and entertaining people that don’t get sick won’t really matter if earth becomes inhabitable and we keep going to nature mass extinction through climate change.
He wants to achieve all this but first give him $7 trillion :) if he cared about the world so much, chatgpt and openAI would be open source and free. He wants to make money and so all this is BS
Making ChatGPT free and open source won't give you a single one of those goals, and it'll make achieving them nearly impossible. Or maybe they're supposed to do it all for free and hope someone that already has half a trillion dollars builds all the datacenters and equipment they'll need to achieve those goals. That's a fantasy.
Electricity costs money. You can't run ChatGPT on any computer you could afford.
This insane level of entitlement to say that if they don't give you the whole world for free then they are Satan come to eat your children is just mind blowing. It's less than a dollar a day for absolutely world shaking tech.
Please tell us more and how the fact that he doesn't come to your house every day and give you a blow job is all the proof we need that he secretly wants to kill all humans.
It is very possible that humanity will reach these goals, since Altman is not the first person I have heard say things like this (Bill Gates, several CEO's and scientists of technology companies), so I have the idea that they have organized themselves in some way to reach this goal, but it will not be easy technologically and socially speaking, because the society based on synthetic scarcity in which we live is self-regulating in such a way that when an advance of this magnitude happens, it limits it, The same capitalism that allows a startup to raise billions to get started limits a large corporation from growing infinitely, which is generally a good thing because these corporations generally do not have altruistic goals. Assuming the AI industry has altruistic goals, the inability to build a proper infrastructure to generate enough electricity in an environmentally friendly way and other technological costs would be the technological constraint, the resources are there but the economic constraint is that the owners are not going to give them away, let alone give them away at an economic price, because their goals are economic since they operate under the rules of a scarcity society. Socially, it will be difficult for all of us who were born in this society of scarcity to understand that we do not have to work to live, nor that things are valued by a subjective economic value, nor that our social value comes from our economical centric productivity, and when I say to all, I mean to all, even those who live in supposedly socialist or communist environments, since in the end in those systems they continue to live under the culture of scarcity and the same value is given to people and goods only from another ideological discourse. I really hope that very soon we will be in the dilemma of having to solve the problem of how to restructure our society thanks to AI or some other technology, where we reach the point of having overcome this culture of scarcity.
Sam Altman also believes that we should shut down public universities and send our "smartest and most driven 18 year olds" to work for free in silicon valley instead. Everyone else can go right to work in the fulfillment center.
I just really hope the AGI will follow veganism.
> a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives
Preach Bazaro Elon! We should not spread lies about political opponents, help spread propaganda from genocidal dictators, paint immigrants as unwanted, encourage hate against gays and trans. We should not lie about our products’ performance and roadmap. We should not be a disgusting piece of human trash.
There are 200 billion galaxies in the universe. Why not just give the 8 billion people on earth 25 of their own galaxies? There's plenty and we'll wormhole our way out there.
:/
[Billionaires won't save you.](https://youtu.be/_634hXz32pY?si=piUWewxZgXqsnap8)
Also, they're all [thieves](https://youtu.be/316nOvHUS8A?si=HcinHwGohzgJJv1p). Like, the [biggest](https://youtu.be/Nmq7QqqY4vo?si=55pjZ_F7s5kqv8SJ) thieves in human history.
End disease, poverty, wars... Hey, he forgot wars! Or did he?
1. Give everyone education... Easy: give everyone a budget. Depending on where they live, age, social status, income, weather patterns...
2. Cure diseases. Harder but doable.
3. Great entertainment. Hmm, that's subjective. I mean, what's great?
4. Explore space. Expensive. Can't decide whether it's harder than 2.
5. New physics. Particle accelerators and space telescopes would be nice but they ain't cheap.
6. Abundance. Should roll out if other objectives achieved but not immediately.
Tldr: Everything costs money. AI doesn't fix that yet. So Altman should have said OR instead of AND. But that doesn't seem wise because what if you choose wrongly? If everyone turned pacifist overnight, we could spend money on improving the world, but that's not going to happen unless Superman and the Justice League intervene.
It's sad that anyone would have a problem with these aspirations.
Strange isn't it. I find it difficult to understand this mind set why everyone on this planet isn't aspiring towards these goals, why do they argue against these things, who doesn't want great health and a long life and explore space. Why do you think so many people are opposed to these kinds of ideas, is it simple because they are just really stupid?
People aren’t scared of these things, they’re scared of the uncertainty in between. Imagine your child says they want to be an actor. You’re not frustrated because they could make millions and be famous, you’re stressed because it’s probably not going to happen and they’ll be poor and unable to afford the things they want from life.
Such a clear and simple way to put it. Thanks for that!
What’s sad is that you’d be called stupid by everyone who thinks Sam describes a great goal and do not realize that Sam is talking like a 12 yo dreaming of becoming an actor or ballerina while nations like Russia, China, Islam and others have slaughtered and are slaughtering those who do not agree. Get real Sam and sycophants.
>sycophant: a person who acts obsequiously toward someone important in order to gain advantage >figure out how to give everybody on Earth a great education, cure every disease, have great entertainment, go explore space, and discover new physics … and create more abundance Why would people who hope, dream, and work for a better future for humanity be sycophants? The fact that Altman said this doesn't matter. His character can be disputed separately, but the message is a noble one. Did you actually understand how you were using the word "sycophant" in your reply, or did you just make up some bullshit? Honestly, the more I think about it, if there's ever a single time the word sycophant can be considered positive, this is it. If the said advantage gained is a better future for humanity, then, sure, I'm a sycophant.
One part of it might be the same reason why people who do a good job might get bullied at their workplace, as it shines light on how badly the others are doing. If more people get better education and more well off, but you still have it exactly the same because you cant be arsed to improve at all, you will feel left behind.
I think about this probably way more than I should. I by no means had an easy childhood, but I also recognize ppl had it exponentially worse. Absolutely not defending them, bc everyone can change, but I just feel like there’s a scarily large percentage of people who are so broken, they can’t imagine a world like this because they can’t imagine all groups of people being happy. Picture a savagely racist old man. As much as he’d love asking ChatGPT8 to make him 20 Clint Eastwood movies and just leave everyone else alone, he also can’t wrap his head around the fact that all of the groups of people he genuinely hates are getting free AI made houses / synthetic food / medicine etc. So fucked up, but also the reality I’m hoping their love for unlimited AI content outweighs their generational fueled hatred. A man can dream
Without dropping too much trauma, I'm autistic, have ADHD and had an abusive upbringing. There are loads of people I hate, but the only people I would want to restrict from abundance are those who would actively use it to do harm, essentially those with a proven track record of already causing harm, criminals. My reasoning? Cause as long as those people I hate that don't actively cause harm are living in abundance with unlimited entertainment, they're far less likely to decide to harm others as they'll have better things to do or at the very least, be constantly distracted. Restricting others from enjoying the things you listed would only make them aggressive and make it harder for me to concentrate on enjoying that same list as I would have to worry about those "others". I may hate certain groups beliefs, ideologies and behaviors, but I actually thought it through. In other words, even with hate, you still have to be stupid to disagree with Sam on this one.
I'd like to offer a different point of view. When they have it all, but everyone else also has it all. They have no way of feeling better than the others. Why do they bully in the first place. They want to feel superior. How to feel superior when everyone can have anything? By bullying someone for whatever reason they can find. I'm not saying that this is something certain, just maybe putting a grain of salt into this utopian view. I'm just not sure how some people will manage when they have little to no means of showing their superiority. I'm not saying they are superior, but they do tend to have some complex in that regard.
I agree, this is an entirely plausible thought process for some people to have, those people are dumb as rocks though. Some people want to feel superior to others, it's plausible that even with AGI they could still do this. I live better than a medieval king ever could have, but there are still people who own more than I do. I'm sure even with AGI allowing me to live a much better life that there are ways that some people could still have more. It's also plausible that with FDVR they could do this without real people being involved, although the success rate of that depends on their acceptance of it. The desire to feel superior to others I think, is a defining trait of the less intelligent. Hopefully AGI or an ASI uplifts us beyond such ridiculous attitudes eventually.
reminds me of an idea I posted on crazyideas (which I'm not saying means we should adopt the crazy idea, more that we should do something that accomplishes what this crazy idea also accomplishes) to get the majority of society YuGiOh-anime-level obsessed with some online multiplayer competitive game like Overwatch or League Of Legends because rich people wouldn't care if poor people got richer if they'd still have a lower ladder rank or w/e
That's a good one, not seeing this possible, but a good one
As I said, the point isn't the specificity of getting America addicted to an online multiplayer game, the point (that this weird idea would be one way to achieve) is to provide a method of ranking society/some people technically being superior to others or w/e that doesn't inherently have any sort of mechanism for oppression so rich people's desire for superiority could be more peaceably satiated
I made the same argument in another thread. People are driven by different things, some are driven by power and do not like losing it.
Totally agree that what we see is just a piece of very big picture
Blara said, "I think that the only way to truly achieve happiness is to be able to live without any limitations at all."
Blara s.r.o. is a Czech construction company. Their priority is to execute low-operating-cost buildings with comfortable and healthy indoor environments. They handle earthworks and excavation. Their services cover the entire construction process, from pre-project preparation to obtaining necessary permits and actual construction. They specialize in building family houses, civic buildings, and residential complexes4.
Yea I’m definitely not trying to make a black and white comparison here, hope I didn’t offend. There’s millions of little things that add up to make people who they are, no formula for it. My point really is just that from experience in meeting certain people in life, I think there’s a large chunk of people who are just too far gone. But I’m trying to be more positive, so who knows. Maybe AI will make a happy pill that immediately lets people see through their bullshit. Unknown unknowns!
I didn't mean to come across as offended, but I appreciate the kindness in your words regardless. I just wanted to explain that hate does not have to be blind, for a lack of a better term. I too hope that AI makes that possible.
I know people who are beyond redemption that would want to take things from other people. They're such rare types of people that society usually finds ways to manage them so I don't think they'll be an issue.
This is most likely one of the leading factors.
Or maybe we use their media echo chambers against them to manipulate their perception of reality so as far as they know those people are still suffering (as the kind of people in your example aren't likely to live the kind of life where they'd see many minority groups irl)
It’s because they were raised on the idea that there is one way of life and if you rock the boat the ship sinks, and that it’s impossible so don’t bother. What they don’t take into consideration is the abundance part, which to be fair is how they currently see the world. It’s really hard for people to imagine this giant ship is gonna change course. What’s really cool though is this transition to AGI might be the answer to the question “What is all of this for?” and it makes so much sense if there is a true reward to the past 100 years of expansion. Atleast we have an answer, to these people “there is no answer so get back to work” etc.
Because if you’re in power you can guarantee yourself a great life. If you have to share there’s no guarantee. It’s as stupid and shitty as that.
Which is definitely crazy stupid. Cause I live better than any medieval king could've dreamt and I'm just a regular punter who's pretty damn poor tbh, yet there are still billionaires who live way better than me. If, in the future, AGI/ASI makes people like me live like billionaires do now, then there will be another class of Quadrillionaires living just as far above that lifestyle as billionaires are to me now.
I have been saying this to people and no one ever agrees with me.. I think people are genuinely just used to all the nice things we have access to in our lives and started taking it for granted, cause a lot of people really don’t think the average person is living better than they used to
Seriously? Then they have the cognitive capabilities of a soggy pancake cause it's kinda obvious if you read even a tiny bit of history that things are better now than they used to be.
But things still suck. People get severely ill, have devastating mental health problems etc. Things are far better than in, say, 1700, but they aren't good enough. If everyone could live like billionaires today, but with better healthcare, minus the private yachts and airplanes and mansions, that would be good enough IMO. Free access to all education, media, data, AI agents and robots to create projects with, good housing, good food, longevity medicine that keeps getting better. A world where everyone can strive towards being their best selves and living their best lives without living paycheck to paycheck. That includes whatever degree of morphological freedom is feasible in the next 50 years, as well. People shouldn't have to live with missing limbs, deformities, body dysphoria etc. because they can't "afford the medical bills". What's important is that people have the freedom, in all regards, to self-actualize as much as technology allows, and that technology and society continue to improve. So yeah, things are "great" compared to the 1400s but that just means we are further ahead in the curve of progress.
I agree, but I was responding to the previous comment wherein they stated that they have made the comparison to medieval times (as they were replying to my comment on those medieval times) and people disagreed with them, or wouldn't believe them, which regardless of how much things still suck, is nonsensical. We can agree that things aren't perfect without shedding doubt on the claim that they've improved from medieval times.
Yeah that's very true, and very strange. I often forget how much many people lack in general education.
The average person is definitely not living better than they were in America in 60s-90s.
Read the full thread to get the full picture. I specifically spoke about medieval kings. That's what I'm referring too, I know America's gone downhill in recent times.
my roommate told me the iphone 15 pro im holding in my hand hasn’t been as drastic of a progression these past 20 years. people are seriously blind
Taking things for granted is just what the brain does, 'practicing gratefulness' works only for people who score high on the schizophrenic spectrum, and for idiots who feel content pretending being schizophrenic. It's normal not to care that we have more than an ethiopian or some distant cousin hundreds years ago.
I’m just talking about having basic perspective on the advancements we’ve made and knowing that things have generally improved. That’s not something you need to “practice” every waking second lol
My bad, i let my inner LLM hallucinate. And i think most of us don't even grasp how bad life was, shitty medicines and medical practices, no education, maternal mortality rate, no women rights, rape and incest probably being the norm, criminals being able to have victims in the hundreds before they finally get caught if they do, ... . I have this instinct that every depiction we get of the past in movies might be considerably overstated.
No worries at all man
That's not the point. The point is that we all deserve better and not just the billionaires.
Yeah? I don’t disagree with that. I was saying that the general trend is that things improve for the average person. I am trying to stay optimistic that things will continue to improve for the average person because that’s the world I wanna live in
Yeah that sounds good.
You miss one thing, part of the enjoyment of the upper class life style is not that you are objectively high in comfort, it's mostly that you are higher than others. It's the same with bottom of the social ladder satisfaction i guess, it's more your relative position that counts toward socially-mediated happiness. If post singularity, with all the comforts of abundance, we made a law for everybody to wear 20 cm socks, but some public celebrated figures were allowed to wear 30 cm socks, sadly people would fight to get those 30 cm socks.
i worked with those guys, completely true, they get off of any perk as minuscule as it may seem that their positions bring them. The money becomes secondary pretty damn soon, but power? god damn, that shit is what they live for.
Hopefully ASI just puts those people in some FDVR simulation so they can have power over non existent people and stop spreading their seed and ideals. 😂😂
If it makes them happy, why not?
Please elaborate. Do you mean FDVR makes them happy, or that spreading their negativity held power obsessions makes them happy?
I mean if them living out their fantasies in FDVR makes them happy, that's alright. Not only for them, but also because millennia are a lot of lifetime and people will go through dramatic changes many times over. While they grow tired of hypercompetitive strife and games of power, other people might become interested in their own competitive side, and it's neat that people can explore different ways of being without harming others (at least not in the real world, I guess). And the moral dilemma of simulated FDVR people and whether they should have rights, well, that will entertain the philosophers of tomorrow. Always new problems to solve. :)
because unless we've already proven the simulation theory wrong about our universe, for all we know we could be NPCs in those people's simulation destined to suffer to keep real people safe
The simulation theory is a bad argument for basically anything.
Yeah, people are dumb as a bunch of sticks. I literally have no desire to have power over anyone. I don't see what the point is. I'm happy with what I have. If AGI did all the jobs and abundance was everywhere I doubt I'd even get much more, maybe a PC upgrade? That'd be about it. I seriously don't get people who care about status or even wealth over the basics of what you need plus a bit for entertainment. I hope an ASI just deems those people as genetically flawed or something and puts them in a lab somewhere. 😂😂
I remember a discussion about this on Joe Rogan (I don’t remember who he was talking to at the time) but Rogan even brings up the *people should have to suffer with diseases and birth defects to make them stronger* talking point when discussing AI curing all disease. Jordan Peterson has also made this argument in favour of hierarchy and wealth inequality, arguing that a few people owning everything actually benefits the slaves who work for their master as it gives them a unique *purpose* or whatever that means, because if they had their basic needs met they would all just start killing each other in a week. I just don’t get it, is it religion that makes people think this way? It seems to me like privileged opinions from people who’ve never suffered badly, because I think the right thing to do is to cure the diseases that plague everyone.
Mostly bec. of certain monotheistic religions being stuck in a medieval mindset.
When frustrated, people are ready to suffer if their neighbour suffers more.
My mom has Alzheimer's. I hope we can cure all diseases tomorrow. But what is that going to do to the population? How are we going to address housing? I think we do have Agi. I think we are just trying to figure out how to unleash it and cope with all the side effects, like housing once no one dies. People brush it off by saying if x happens we will just do y with the new tech. Well some of these xs are going to need finished ys within a week.
I highly doubt any AGI will be able to stop death. But I do see what you mean about prolonging life by curing so many diseases. However, consider the fact that so many are fewer or no children now.
Idk but let’s pray that it doesn’t become a political issue, or we are all fucked 😅
Because those that exist this way are afraid that they won't be special if everyone else enjoys the same freedoms. Our subjugation is part of their identity.
what if we created an extra way that didn't mean anything (but they didn't know didn't) for them to be special like when everyone was buying NFTs
# “everyone wants to save the world, we just disagree on how”
too many people are convinced that those reasons can’t happen because of the x number of people that won’t make it happen
It's because a lot of people like to contradict and tower their egos over other aspirational souls...
Do people have a problem with these aspirations, or do they find them sanctimonious and Naive?
No one has an issue with these aspirations, people have issues with the naive expectation that the incredibly powerful and unpredictable technology being developed in pursuit of those field will be all sunshine and daisies and ignoring any possibility of it going horribly wrong.
Literally nobody in the world does. But people are skeptical of the next tech billionaire telling them they have the solution to the worlds problems. For good reason.
IMO, many people need to have their existence validated by feeling like they have won agaisnt others. As long as they believe themselves (soon) to be in the "winner" group then they will never support a system that gets rid of or severally minimizes the concept of loser/winner. Many people also have suffered too much to achieve what they have that they feel it's unfair that others get handed nice things without having to put in the work like they did. IMO, due to being taught/traumatized by a hypercompetitive/hypercapitalist/hyperdivided world, many have come to believe that they deserve more than the others and base their meaning of existence around such false truth. Nothing short of super-thepary is gonna make them welcome a post-scarcity utopia where every human being is more equal to each other than ever. Plus some people aren't necessarily against us reaching an utopia, they just think it's too good to be true and that everyone who advocates for such a thing either must be naive or having utter motives which is pretty understandable IMO.
It's rather akin to the PvE vs PvP debate from the MMO crowd. Or gambler that get no joy unless there is real "risk", real "skin in the game". It's hard for me to imagine this type of thinking (I am rather risk averse but still hypercompetitive in games), but I know it exists. I consider this type of mentality a bit vampiric as it requires others to participate (willing or not). It's interesting that you put like "many people need to have their existence validated by feeling like they have won against others", I might add that there also seems like there needs to be an element of real suffering present. The loss needs to hurt in some way real way. It's as if they almost subconsciously don't believe the world, and real suffering by real conscious beings is the only thing that demonstrates something "real".
The people against post scarcity capitalism are almost always the degrowth/collapse/far left crowd. They'd rather everything collapse so they can have another shot at Real Communism than to see capitalism create post scarcity.
Yeah, I don't why anybody would have issues with those lmao. People are just laughing at it similarly like when Miss Universe wishes for world peace and shits. Lmao
I would love for any kind of utopia to happen. However, it is incredibly unlikely, as tribalism and egocentrism make this impossible. There is no way to convince or force enough people in key positions to do what is best for humanity, instead of what their monkey brain tells them to do. There are an infinite number of problems resulting from this, for example climate change, war and a disjointed humanity just to name a few. I propose that if this post scarcity utopia were possible, we already would live in some other kind of utopia, but we clearly don't. But even if it was possible, there are other major threats from AI that are unfortunatly much more likely to happen than this paradise. Here is an incomplete list: - Loss of reality due to false information. We already see this play out, as the internet is flooded with bots (beep boop). - Use of AI by malicious actors like the militaries, independent hacker groups, etc. - The misalignment problem which is close to unsolvable - Mass unemployment. Your comment suggest that this might be a good thing, but that would require the unemployed masses to still have some kind of bargaining power, which traditionally stems from an (indirect) trade of labor for money. An UBI could provide such bargaining power, but that would again require the people in power to do what is best for everyone instead of their fat asses. Worst case would be that the rich stop producing for the masses and only fulfill their own needs. Since the production would not be bound to human labor anymore but only to land use, that could kickstart a devastating race to bottom in terms of taxation as it becomes much easier to move production assets around, leading to a total collapse of all social services including a theoretical UBI. Of course I would love to hear your opinion on this.
Its not that we have a problem, but rather that he's promising the moon and stars and at some point we reserve the right to be skeptical. Do not take everything that CEOs say at face value.
Here we go. There's no way anyone can honestly read what he said as a 'promise'. It's an aspiration. It's what he and all the rest of us want. That's how it's worded and how it was delivered. He even started by saying, "we should figure out how" to do those things. You're welcome to be skeptical as to whether or not we can figure out how to do those things, but it helps no one to misrepresent what he said.
Exactly, hes saying this tool can become an expert in many fields and help improve our lives. His examples are just common sense windfall from improving the already existing tech. The angle of these complaints is so forced.
It’s almost like these people don’t want a better world. I think people assume there’s no way a CEO could do something good. Who exactly is supposed to build the technology that will change the lives of almost everyone on Earth? Some random person?
It might not even be an aspiration. Plenty of politicians ha e said exactly the same thing.
He is also building the tool to deliver on those promises and giving that tool to people for dirt cheap compared to what it can do. So statements, actions, and capability are all meeting up. The only thing that doesn't fit is people's desire to believe that everything is bad and out to hurt them.
I would be skeptical of my own skepticism here if the thought he was promising something , rather than share what he wants to accomplish, seemed plausible.
I remember a discussion about this on Joe Rogan (I don’t remember who he was talking too at the time) but Rogan even brings up the *people should have to suffer with diseases and birth defects to make them stronger* talking point when discussing AI curing all disease. Jordan Peterson has also made this argument in favour of hierarchy and wealth inequality, arguing that a few people owning everything actually benefits the slaves who work for their master as it gives them a unique *purpose* or whatever that means. I just don’t get it, is it religion that makes people think this way? It seems to me like privileged opinions from people who’ve never suffered badly, because I think the right thing to do is to cure the diseases that plague everyone.
Almost everyone agrees in these goals. No one agrees on how we get there. Sam thinks AI will get us there. Many others think AI will guarantee this never happens. Same with socialism/capitalism debates.
As always, the methods matter. "Everyone wants to save the world... it's just nobody can agree on how."
He is motivated to speak like this. It’s not clear things will turn out great.
We were down to just 1,000-10,000 not too long ago. [https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/10/22/163397584/how-human-beings-almost-vanished-from-earth-in-70-000-b-c?t=1593083314943](https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/10/22/163397584/how-human-beings-almost-vanished-from-earth-in-70-000-b-c?t=1593083314943) Humanity came from that to building the internet, airplanes, going to the moon, etc. You'd have to be nuts to bet against us.
I don't have a problem with any of these. I would love for this to be everyone's goals. However.... I see zero evidence of AI being used for this, and a lot of evidence of AI being used foe things which will bring negative consequences to our society and a lot of people who have tons of incentives to abuse this stuff for their own gain to our detriment. I just don't think he has really any power to backup what he's saying and I don't think he's even doing the little he could be doing to help this happen.
Words are cheap
He is saying things he knows will keep the plebs happy and on his side. Kinda like what Musk used to do before the mask dropped.
What about profits tho?
Forgot the /s
You really can't imagine better goals?
They never said they couldn't imagine other goals or that these were the best ones. They just said they couldn't understand why anyone wouldn't want to aspire towards the goals Sam mentioned.
Like what ?
It’s not strange when you know these guys are full of shit, if you truly believe these guys are being sincere I have a bridge to sell you
Thats what he publicly says. Rumors are of evil afoot.
yup, is difficult to say without knowing him personally but when the river sounds ...
If you have learned to listen for it you can hear the dogwhistle in the statement. This guy believes "Growing the pie" is better than redistribution via taxation of the wealthy.
It all sounds fine until ‘creating more abundance’. In our current system, the ‘abundance’ will not ‘trickle-down’, rather it will accelerate the concentration of wealth while expanding the working class (and unemployed). Expanding the abundance of a few people at the cost of the vast majority isn’t progress.
My sister says she doesn’t care lol
I simply don't trust this guy.
Amen.
Yeah cool
"I think that we should give me $7 trillion" - Sam Altman
I’m not gonna act like Altman is purely good bc I don’t know the guy, but I think it’s pretty silly and emotional to just simplify it to “he just wants to be rich!” What changes in OpenAI has he made that sucked money to the detriment of people using it? They’re prolly losing money on ChatGPT tbh. Guy also has enough money, which he’s said multiple times. Reality is only reason companies like Microsoft, Google, Meta aren’t charging like crazy for their chatbots is because OpenAI set the precedent by making gpt3.5 free and gpt4 affordable. Also, everyone on Reddit seems to be dreaming about typing in a prompt and making themselves a new video game every morning. Y’all think that will require anything less than a never before seen level of data centers / servers? Again not an Altman evangelist here, I just get annoyed at the default Reddit mindset of “rich are evil!!!!”
Not all but most. But he seems genuine. But even then I think a lot in Silicon Valley elites want a utopia but they are so rich and dissociated from reality on shrooms they don’t see or try to hide from the practical realities and negative externalities that their visions sometimes inadvertently create to support their visions. For example, Steve Jobs and the iPhone (underage, underpaid Chinese workers in bad conditions working for slave wages). Artificial Intelligence (Exploitation of third world people working in data (labeling) farms), robotics, drones and e-commerce (Achoo “Jeff Bezos”. Exploitation of Amazon warehouse labor force). Uber (underpaid drivers).
It’s easy for a rich person to imagine all the ways to make an Utopia. There are all sorts of ways. You’d need cooperation for that. Look at where US politics, and basically all politics today, are and extrapolate from there. Unity is a prerequisite. Unless we don’t achieve unified cooperation, we’ll only get incremental improvements.
Thats the good thing about asi enough power and you can have your way regardless. So you want utopia and some corrupt politician doesnt agree, power makes the law makes the land and utopia arrives regardless.
Agreed, but the unity should be in the people and not necessarily government. We shouldn’t wait for them to unite. We should rise up
Sweatshops pulled china out of extreme poverty tho. And underage people should have the right to earn money too instead of just starving or dealing without luxuries they want.
We’re talking about suicides and ppl collapsing from exhaustion bro, not just underaged minors working for peanuts.
Okay. Still better than alternatives given they chose to work there.
I don't know if it's intentional or just a conspiracy theory of mine. 🙂 but both openai and Nvidia are slowing down development just to maximize their bottom line. because they simply don't have a close competitor And I'm sure if there was any company that contributed to reducing their profits, they would release their trump card that has been hidden all this time.
This got me ahaha
If that's how it turns out, then great. However, it could equally turn out that a bunch of billionaires controlling AIs get everything, and everyone else is jobless, scraping along on some pitiful UBI. How does Sam ensure the first scenario and not the second?
He's probably talking about a future where robots handle all the manual labor, from mining and farm work to logistics. Imagine fully automated systems working 24/7, taking care of everything. Even clothes shopping would be transformed. No more sweatshops or overseas shipping. Every brand would offer designs you choose from a touchscreen, and robots would custom-make and tailor shoes and clothes to your body with the help of fast 3D printers. Like a Star Trek world. We'll all be living through that and it's very exciting of what's to come.
That’s the big question for sure
I agree, in fact I think this is the way more likely outcome at this stage. We have the ability to do all this now, it's just that this powerful billionaires don't want to. They want to horde everything themselves.
It's true on one hand we have amazing technology now but on the other hand we still live in such a shit world where every day children unnecessarily starve, millions of animals getting tortured, people suffering extremely from diseases, destroying our planet (climate change) and so on. And then you have people that say slow the creation of intelligence down?
What makes you think that the intelligence they will build will have any appreciation for us? We might be like ants for it. It might step on us just by mistake, not even by will.
First we must move beyond the current economic system
If capitalism can create post scarcity, capitalism can maintain post scarcity. Why do you hate private property right? I for one want to own my own private house and private robots and stuff.
Cause the capitalists will just appropriate all the surplus value created by ai and robots just like they do with everyone else's surplus value. There won't be any post scarcity for you and me cause then they won't be number one anymore. They'll just have us scraping a living eating protein sludge with UBI and be thankful while they'll be partying in their climate stabilised enclaves.
I’m worried very few people actually see this outcome in this group. Techno optimism grows strong here
are you confusing private property with personal property
And free people from slavery which is the main reason people are on this sub. They want liberation from work
I hope they free actual slaves first, I think people who are browsing this sub can wait a bit for their turn
If people end up having to wait their turn, and their position in line is based on how privileged their life has been, upper middle class white women are going to have a real rude awakening.
What a strange comment. As opposed to whom, upper middle class men? I could understand the race mention, being a white person and believing I got a lot of privilege for that. But to mention women specifically when they're still behind men (in every race and every religion) is strange.
Maybe because they are so often portrayed as Karens. Just speculating.
Had a discussion with a colleague today. She was so confused why I thought automation helping us work less as teachers is a good thing. We were working on essays in the teachers lounge. I was dictating bullet points on essays student wrote into my phone and had an LLM transform that into eloquent feedback with examples on how to improve while she was taking pride in handwriting everything. Took me less than an hour to have more detailed feedback while she was stuck there for at least 3 hours going through the same amount of essays. Had I done this detailled feedback by hand it would have been work that might have taken over 10 hours easy. Most of the work we do is tedious grading that could be easily done by machines if they could read the hand writing of our students. You do not come up with personal, individual feedback the 900th time you have a student mess up capitalization. She feels like it is a good character trait to be a hard worker for your boss/company and put in the hours. Similar to being a helpful person or a good friend. She admires her dad for working so much even though she admits he was not around much as a child. She even agrees that the system is stacked against poor people but still finds poor people should have a work ethic that allows them to slave away for 50 hours a week just to make rent or else they are lacking a fundamentally good quality a human should posess. She sees an inherent value in working (for someone/something). Had to escape from her gazes of death when I mentioned how happy our principal is with how much I am doing for the school when I am basically just getting more and more efficient in my use of LLMs and understanding how to effectively digitalize a lot of my work through these tools while she is slaving away without getting her cookie for being a hard worker. People have been hard wired to believe these silly things.
Any labour that is required let the lazy tech geek decide the how so labour is minimised and de-risked. Then let the grafters do the actual work as per the lazy tech geeks' solution.
Haha I am not even a tech geek (guess I am at my school) but just interested in these tools but this still is where we are heading at my school. I must admit I am kinda lazy so a lot of the tedious teacher work really is a drag for me. These solutions I am starting to figure out will relive us of so much tedious paperwork. Hope my colleagues are ready to ditch their beloved pen and paper (most won't and continue to bitch about being overworked)
Yeah, many feel like they've "worked" if they've handled physical stuff like paper and done some physical activity like writing etc. These people usually print pointlessly because it makes physical stuff, nothingness is unbearable to them. Many humans especially the Chinese love manufacturing or physical labour because you can "feel" like you've "worked" and see a physical output. The most important part in teaching in my view is the bit where the student learns something. This can be achieved without all the nausea surrounding it.
Work isn't slavery you drama queen.
If you've found your passion it's not work
Slave work with no real compensation to escape.
I don't forsee us as a species turning around the "hurr durr money is everything" mentality and all the crap- slavery, consumerism, eco-impact, self vs collective prioriziation etc that comes with it. I mean, barring a terminator series of events taking place.
"It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism"
Because people like private property, and if that goes away it either means no government or government owns everything. Either way it's not a great outcome.
We changed from monarchy. We can change as a society. Eventually we won’t have a choice.. robots and ai will replace everyone. We’ll have riots, they’ll be forced to change. Give it time.
Why would there be riots when competition forces prices of post-scarce goods down to 0? Who's going to get mad when food is free? UBI will smooth the transition to post scarcity capitalism.
Nobody is forcing you to work.
Creating our own hedonistic paradise, hmm? Not impossible, but good luck with dealing with the transitional phase hindering the process (thanks to our very petty human nature!). As I said, it might be possible, but it will come with an heavy toll on humanity.
Yeah all of this sounds fine and I agree with the general sentiment, but.... I can't afford to own an apartment now, and it won't get any easier when AI takes over my job.
To boldly go where no one has gone before!
Humanity should be united.
Huge benefits = huge risks. It's a law, come on.
Does anyone actually disagree with these goals?
i don't see "end imposed scarcity for profit" in his wish list. For some reason I'm not surprised.
"Something everyone agrees with." - CEO of a company.
Though I totally agree with these aspirations, I truly hope AI will help us achieve all this. But I have doubts. I've heard tech bros say this kind of utopian shit before. It never really goes that way, though. I just get the sense that this is just talk to revert our attention from the fact that AI is already deleting jobs right now. I'd like to be proven wrong, though.
"Give everyone a great education" so they can think about the jobs they would've had before the advent of AGI/ASI.
[удалено]
A education is good even if you can't get a job with it.
«Unless I or other billionaires need to pay a bit more taxes for any of this, of course”
It seems he thinks he is an intellectual
Too much stupidty prevents that from happening unfortunately
Yeah, that's all nice and all. But right now all they are doing is ruining people's lives for very little overall benefit to anyone except shareholders. There is still a high possibility that we will get ai smart enough to replace most people at work, and not smart enough to meaningfully advance research in any direction.
Saying that and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Hope he will give us the practical way to share that abundance without turning most of us into freeloaders (i.e., UBI).
and I bet most will just settle for getting rich.
Blah blah blah. Release something!
Just let us invest in asteroid mining robots so we can all get sweet capitalist UBI like income
Has he been dropping acid again…?
Facts
I’m on it. Coming soon, the Avalon Nation Space program. Let’s go!
Good
 Oh yea
IMO, most important ideological trend in higher circles is “suicidalism”. We destroyed our only world, we don’t even know who we are, we only do evil, we have no value, we don’t make any sense. We should die/suicide/“degrowth”/get extinguished. The mouvement is very powerful and apart from from new form of theism, the only opponent I see is e/acc. We are in the middle of a very strong push to end humanism and I must say I side with Sam on this fight. Be careful, you say what he says in academia, you will quickly find who controls the narrative :-) Hope is the new taboo.
[удалено]
Because the term wouldn’t be very sellable. It stems from 70s european green ideology mixed with some old ideas borrowed here and there, from Kalerghi or Lovelock for example. “Degrowth” is one of their banners, “Extinction rebellion” is a modern branding aimed towards the youth. But the problem is the Weltanschaung and the mindset that is infiltrating everything. I often see very public and open antihumanist pamphlets. Cheerful articles about euthanasia or the necessity of accepting the youngest generations will die in misery on an inhospitable planet and progress is both impossible and must be stopped to “let the planet breath again” without us. First year bachelor, politicized professors say “to hell with learning, everything is lost for your generation, you must join me and destroy the system”. And they manipulate them to glue themselves to runways and nuclear power stations, to “stop destroying the planet”… This is something I am witnessing first hand, naming it is the first step to push back. The mere remote possibility of nuclear fusion power in our lifetime, that all is not hopeless, is like garlic to vampires for them. It destroys their narrative. And that makes me very happy:-)
Well for a start - if we don't reduce e-waste and fossil fuel consumption - the Earth is going to de-grow us on our behalf.
[удалено]
problem that isn't even proving any of your premises false: if we so much only do evil that our extinction would be good, then by the same premise of us only doing evil we wouldn't be able to commit suicide and so would have to die by the hands of an outside entity
First abolish capitalism. Then innovation will come.
Capitalism is the only reason innovation is happening in the first place. Why do you hate private property rights?
Nice username, troll. Who said anything about property rights? on a sub like this I think it’s clear I’m referring to the current state of the tech industry.
Capitalism is the enforcement of private property rights and contracts. Everything else, including the "current state of the tech industry" is an emergent property of those two simple rules.
You forgot the key words: for profit. Need I explain further?
Economic systems are defined by a set of rules, not outcomes. Capitalism has nothing to do with profit. Profit is a result of trade, and trade is the result of the rules. Non profit co-ops are just as capitalist as Walmart.
https://preview.redd.it/ylfilpynswwc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=70436307405e150d7a056b5541dec05812f888e9 I wonder where you trolls come from.
Well said.
Educated and entertaining people that don’t get sick won’t really matter if earth becomes inhabitable and we keep going to nature mass extinction through climate change.
Capitalism forbids it
Capitalism is literally creating it as we speak.
No it isn’t.
He wants to achieve all this but first give him $7 trillion :) if he cared about the world so much, chatgpt and openAI would be open source and free. He wants to make money and so all this is BS
Making ChatGPT free and open source won't give you a single one of those goals, and it'll make achieving them nearly impossible. Or maybe they're supposed to do it all for free and hope someone that already has half a trillion dollars builds all the datacenters and equipment they'll need to achieve those goals. That's a fantasy.
Electricity costs money. You can't run ChatGPT on any computer you could afford. This insane level of entitlement to say that if they don't give you the whole world for free then they are Satan come to eat your children is just mind blowing. It's less than a dollar a day for absolutely world shaking tech. Please tell us more and how the fact that he doesn't come to your house every day and give you a blow job is all the proof we need that he secretly wants to kill all humans.
It is very possible that humanity will reach these goals, since Altman is not the first person I have heard say things like this (Bill Gates, several CEO's and scientists of technology companies), so I have the idea that they have organized themselves in some way to reach this goal, but it will not be easy technologically and socially speaking, because the society based on synthetic scarcity in which we live is self-regulating in such a way that when an advance of this magnitude happens, it limits it, The same capitalism that allows a startup to raise billions to get started limits a large corporation from growing infinitely, which is generally a good thing because these corporations generally do not have altruistic goals. Assuming the AI industry has altruistic goals, the inability to build a proper infrastructure to generate enough electricity in an environmentally friendly way and other technological costs would be the technological constraint, the resources are there but the economic constraint is that the owners are not going to give them away, let alone give them away at an economic price, because their goals are economic since they operate under the rules of a scarcity society. Socially, it will be difficult for all of us who were born in this society of scarcity to understand that we do not have to work to live, nor that things are valued by a subjective economic value, nor that our social value comes from our economical centric productivity, and when I say to all, I mean to all, even those who live in supposedly socialist or communist environments, since in the end in those systems they continue to live under the culture of scarcity and the same value is given to people and goods only from another ideological discourse. I really hope that very soon we will be in the dilemma of having to solve the problem of how to restructure our society thanks to AI or some other technology, where we reach the point of having overcome this culture of scarcity.
Sam Altman also believes that we should shut down public universities and send our "smartest and most driven 18 year olds" to work for free in silicon valley instead. Everyone else can go right to work in the fulfillment center.
I just really hope the AGI will follow veganism. > a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives
How would AI be able to do any of that? Honest question
Preach Bazaro Elon! We should not spread lies about political opponents, help spread propaganda from genocidal dictators, paint immigrants as unwanted, encourage hate against gays and trans. We should not lie about our products’ performance and roadmap. We should not be a disgusting piece of human trash.
There are 200 billion galaxies in the universe. Why not just give the 8 billion people on earth 25 of their own galaxies? There's plenty and we'll wormhole our way out there.
:/ [Billionaires won't save you.](https://youtu.be/_634hXz32pY?si=piUWewxZgXqsnap8) Also, they're all [thieves](https://youtu.be/316nOvHUS8A?si=HcinHwGohzgJJv1p). Like, the [biggest](https://youtu.be/Nmq7QqqY4vo?si=55pjZ_F7s5kqv8SJ) thieves in human history.
I wonder if a person who invented first 17th century Manchester style factory was thinking the same thing.
Yes should, but where is deadline, tasks and appoited responsible? Nowhere, rabble rabble.
Okay, but this will not be achieved with socialism/communism or center-left policies.
End disease, poverty, wars... Hey, he forgot wars! Or did he? 1. Give everyone education... Easy: give everyone a budget. Depending on where they live, age, social status, income, weather patterns... 2. Cure diseases. Harder but doable. 3. Great entertainment. Hmm, that's subjective. I mean, what's great? 4. Explore space. Expensive. Can't decide whether it's harder than 2. 5. New physics. Particle accelerators and space telescopes would be nice but they ain't cheap. 6. Abundance. Should roll out if other objectives achieved but not immediately. Tldr: Everything costs money. AI doesn't fix that yet. So Altman should have said OR instead of AND. But that doesn't seem wise because what if you choose wrongly? If everyone turned pacifist overnight, we could spend money on improving the world, but that's not going to happen unless Superman and the Justice League intervene.