"Essentially, the government is going to take over some fraction of the big tech firms."

…“Eventually, we need some form of universal basic income for everybody while they work and once they retire,” Roubini added. “We’re already on the way.”…

“We’ll have either ex-post distribution—that is universal basic income—or we’ll have it ex-ante. Ex-ante means some form of socialism,” Roubini explained. “Essentially, the government is going to take over some fraction of the big tech firms.”

He said AI companies are already willing to hand over stakes to the government, alluding to a Financial Times report that said OpenAI has discussed giving 5% as a way for the public to share in the upside of AI.

Altman’s proposal would entail other AI companies providing similar stakes, although it’s not clear if his U.S. rivals would be willing to do so.

As a result, Roubini believes universal basic income or socialism is inevitable, saying “We’re going already in that direction, effectively.”…

…he called it optimistic, given that it assumes 10% growth and “machines doing all the work.”…

  • daanniiEnglish
    21·
    2 days ago

    Dude. Ai is statistical formulas.

    Just because it “feels” insightful does not make it anything more than probabilities.

    If you create it yourself, you surely understand this.

    Ai is a system designed to mimic.

    Don’t be fooled by a mimic.

    You give it “life”. You interpret ai as being more than it actually is.

    I’m starting to think AI psychosis really is a thing. Way too many people seem to think it’s actually alive. Or has consciousness.

    It understands nothing. It only regurgitates.

    And when I was talking about trial and error I’m referring to the so-called problem solving AI systems being applied to many things.

    • BJW@lemmus.orgEnglish
      11·
      2 days ago

      I never claimed it was alive. I do think you oversimplify it’s function, though.

      Let me provide an example, and you tell me where the misunderstanding exists?

      I take a photo of a wall, and tell a model I’d like a recommendation on color to match the existing palette. It responds with a recommendation that won’t clash, but further adds that based on the furniture in the room it suspects the room is used for studying and contemplation. Based on this unprompted observation, it recommends a different specific color, and further adds that the distance to the ceiling is less than standard, so it further recommends incorporating vertical lines into the design to provide the illusion of greater space than is actually available.

      I call the additional information insightful, and surmising the purpose of the room based on furnishings, when it was unrelated to the original question, is an example of advanced inference of information. Is it not?

      • daanniiEnglish
        11·
        2 days ago

        No it’s not an example of advance anything.

        It pulls information based on what you, a human asked it to do and it used information commonly found on guides. That a human made.

        It’s a glorified search engine.

        • BJW@lemmus.orgEnglish
          11·
          2 days ago

          I didn’t ask it to analyze the purpose of the room, or make a modified recommendation on the determination. It took the initiative to incorporate that information, inferred a conclusion I didn’t provide, and further volunteered helpful information wholly unrelated to the prompt.

          Of course humans made the original information. It’s the culmination of all human knowledge! Are you suggesting that to be doing anything at all impressive, it would need to spontaneously learn what dolphins think and know?

          A search engine… You’re not even serious. Nevermind. Go back to earning your PhD in psychology and leave us plebians alone.

          • daanniiEnglish
            1·
            1 day ago

            But it used popular guides online. That a human made.

            It didn’t think “oh I should really go above and beyond to make sure this person gets the perfect color”.

            It doesn’t have such motivations since it’s a probability formula it instead searches reddit comments and popular websites and uses that information.

            These are popular in the first place because they provided good information. Ai doesn’t pull from a reddit post with 10 downvotes. Or a website with little information and even less traffic.

            And This is how dead internet works.

            The websites ai stole that information from only invested in making such guides to pull traffic to their site which likely sells something.

            When these guides no longer pull in traffic to their store because Google just stole their tutorials or guides (without crediting the humans that made them) , stores will stop creating guides, tutorials and the like.

            Why would they invest in creating knowledge when AI is just going to steal it?

            They won’t.

            In a matter of years there will be no new innovation or guidelines made and vetted by humans. Just AI that stole it from AI that stole it from AI …that stole it from a human who wrote it 10 years ago to the point where the guide isn’t even relevant anymore. And AI has added a bunch of made up sounding things at every iteration so it’s now all just nonsense.