[dinvlad]

Well, we have to work with what we have :-) It would be highly unlikely that something new violates the established trends over thousands of years.

It's not surprising that the human race has survived for this long - we always find ways to adapt, no matter what challenges history throws at us. This is what distinguishes us (and I suspect will always do) from the machines.

[tivert]

> It would be highly unlikely that something new violates the established trends over thousands of years.

What now? Established trends have been regularly violated over thousands of years.

> It's not surprising that the human race has survived for this long - we always find ways to adapt, no matter what challenges history throws at us. This is what distinguishes us (and I suspect will always do) from the machines.

You know what would count as an adaptation? Large fractions of population becoming immiserated and either dying off or living in poverty at the margins.

Mere survival is the wrong metric.

[dinvlad]

I think you're severely overestimating the abilities of this "AI" and underestimating the abilities of the human mind here :-)

However, if you'd like to be pessimistic on it I won't argue, I have that tendency too ;)

And to lighten up the mood, I highly recommend listening to this episode with Gary Marcus, where he invites experts in the field of humor to discuss how distinctly bad the LLMs are at explaining what comes naturally to us: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/can-ai-make-you-laugh/...

[tivert]

> I think you're severely overestimating the abilities of this "AI" and underestimating the abilities of the human mind here :-)

"This AI" seems perfectly capable of resulting of extending the kind of economic immiseration that has already affected many blue collar jobs into many types of white collar work (ironically enough, the kind of work those blue collar workers were told to pick up).

Past this iteration of AI, who knows if the advances will peter out, but it's foolish to assume things will be fine because other things were adapted to in the past. That's kinda like assuming you won't die before having kids because none of your ancestors did.

[dinvlad]

As said, I won't argue with pessimism here, but I think there're equally as many (if not more) causes for optimism ;)

[tivert]

> I think there're equally as many (if not more) causes for optimism ;)

List them.

[dinvlad]

I won't engage any further. I see that I won't be able to convince you in the opposite, so there's no reason for me to try to "defend" my argument :-) And your "command" is kinda rude, regardless.

[HKH2]

> You know what would count as an adaptation? Large fractions of population becoming immiserated and either dying off or living in poverty at the margins.

> Mere survival is the wrong metric.

People don't have to live in cities. Knowledge work has brought many people to cities and the absence of it will reverse that trend. It is welfare that keeps impoverished people living in cities.

[xk_id]

> Established trends have been regularly violated over thousands of years.

I don’t think that’s true. The archetypal constructs of human cognition have been unchanged. Hence the enduring relevance of myths. It’s always the same stories playing out.

[tivert]

>> Established trends have been regularly violated over thousands of years.

> I don’t think that’s true. The archetypal constructs of human cognition have been unchanged. Hence the enduring relevance of myths. It’s always the same stories playing out.

I think you misunderstand. I didn't say everything has changed, just that many "established trends" have been.

I mean, at some point it was a well established trend that all humans hunted and gathered for their substance, then that trend was violated.

At some point, the trend of "we will find something productive to do with all these people who's jobs have been made obsolete" may be violated. And it seems like that's getting more likely the more rarefied the remaining valuable skills become.