> It's not hard to find accounts of people who say they're 2x, 3x, 5x more efficient in their work now.
What does "making some one 5x more efficient" actually mean anyway? Does it makes people enjoy their lives more, or it just makes few people work harder while leaving the others hanging without income?
Let me bring up another point just popped up in my head: AI don't really need to be the perfect replacement to a human worker for them to replace the human worker, instead, it just need to be good enough to make economical sense for the employer to switch labor strategy.
We the market has already been trained to accept reduced product quality during the past decades as companies adjusting their production strategies. It is only reasonable to assume that we will accepting it further.
So even if AI technology cannot maintain the same level of quality standard we often suffer today, it is still well within the realm of possibility that companies will just replace their workers with AI and then expect the market to lower it's expectations more.
> The stakes here are high. The opportunities are profound.
I guess time will tell...
While I at it, another thing:
> AI will not destroy the world, and in fact may save it.
Well, you can save the world many many times over, and then you can still save it once more and even more. But the world can't really take too many destruction. One or two extinction level events might just done it for good.
Also, AI don't even need to be sentient or have the ability to reason it's way towards world destruction. In fact, it might not even know what the f it's doing, all it needs is the capability to do so and some calculations to line things up.
I'm not really very optimistic about it, obviously.
What does "making some one 5x more efficient" actually mean anyway? Does it makes people enjoy their lives more, or it just makes few people work harder while leaving the others hanging without income?
Let me bring up another point just popped up in my head: AI don't really need to be the perfect replacement to a human worker for them to replace the human worker, instead, it just need to be good enough to make economical sense for the employer to switch labor strategy.
We the market has already been trained to accept reduced product quality during the past decades as companies adjusting their production strategies. It is only reasonable to assume that we will accepting it further.
So even if AI technology cannot maintain the same level of quality standard we often suffer today, it is still well within the realm of possibility that companies will just replace their workers with AI and then expect the market to lower it's expectations more.
> The stakes here are high. The opportunities are profound.
I guess time will tell...
While I at it, another thing:
> AI will not destroy the world, and in fact may save it.
Well, you can save the world many many times over, and then you can still save it once more and even more. But the world can't really take too many destruction. One or two extinction level events might just done it for good.
Also, AI don't even need to be sentient or have the ability to reason it's way towards world destruction. In fact, it might not even know what the f it's doing, all it needs is the capability to do so and some calculations to line things up.
I'm not really very optimistic about it, obviously.