> Ensuring that the benefits of AGI are broadly distributed is critical. The historical impact of technological progress suggests that most of the metrics we care about (health outcomes, economic prosperity, etc.) get better on average and over the long-term, but increasing equality does not seem technologically determined and getting this right may require new ideas.
> In particular, it does seem like the balance of power between capital and labor could easily get messed up, and this may require early intervention. We are open to strange-sounding ideas like giving some “compute budget” to enable everyone on Earth to use a lot of AI, but we can also see a lot of ways where just relentlessly driving the cost of intelligence as low as possible has the desired effect.
The idea that distributing a "universal basic compute budget" to every person would do anything to solve potential economic inequality that may arise due to hypothetical AGI is just comically simplistic and childish. Giving people access to AI won't fix power imbalances if wealth continues to concentrate.
Sam Altman is a professional bullshit peddler—particularly at this stage in his career, I rarely hear of him doing anything else.
Even if that turns out to be true - I don't want human life to be about accomplishment only. We're not here as economic machines to squeeze value out of the next business idea.
If you broaden the notion of "accomplishment" enough then I guess this sentiment is ok. But raising a family, enjoying nature, or attaining good health (for example) don't really seem like things a chatbot could help with much. I guess, charitably, AI could increase the amount of wealth in society to the point where people have more time to pursue those things, but I'm not sure that's the most likely outcome.
I’m unconvinced. Working hours in industrial countries have gone down over the last century or two, not up. Things were even worse for the vast majority of people before the 1800s, most people didn’t even get “careers” or have the luxury of thinking in terms of “accomplishments”.
I think waking time away from work, and not work pay, is the most relevant metric to answer the question raised in this sub-thread. (Though there is obviously overlap, what you can do with your free time and how much you have is obviously driven by your income.)
While you have a good point - there is real inequality and it’s still a struggle to be poor, no question - this doesn’t actually contradict my point, which is that people have on average more free time than they used to, and that free time is what I think @v3xro is referring to.
“Productivity” is a loaded word, it means dollars collected, and a productivity increase does not necessarily mean workers worked harder (though it does happen sometimes). While it sucks for workers if companies can collect more dollars without paying more for production, it’s not directly relevant to worker’s lifestyle.
This chart shows adjusted wages increasing at a very slow moderate rate for the last 50 years: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q. It’s not that bad if wages “stagnate” if we’re talking inflation adjusted purchasing parity, which I think you are. While it might be unfair for capitalists to reap relatively more, that doesn’t actually reflect on the question of what human life is about and whether “accomplishments” at work are the primary meaning of our lives.
Or even rich countries. How many people live paycheck to paycheck in shitty conditions in the top 10 richest countries in the world the world ?
Technosolutionists have a huge blind spot, as long as we run the free for all capitalist software it doesn't matter if we get to AGI, immortality and superman powers, most people get fucked
he's either delusional, or more likely lying. what he's saying is absolute nonsense and he should know better, but if he said the truth people might ask why he needs tens of billions of dollars
This guy lives in his own bubble. No reality of poor countries.