[benlivengood]

In the long run I think it's pretty unhealthy to make one's career a large part of one's identity. What happens during burnout or retirement or being laid off if a huge portion of one's self depends on career work?

Economically it's been a mistake to let wealth get stratified so unequally; we should have and need to reintroduce high progressive tax rates on income and potentially implement wealth taxes to reduce the necessity of guessing a high-paying career over 5 years in advance. That simply won't be possible to do accurately with coming automation. But it is possible to grow social safety nets and decrease wealth disparity so that pursuing any marginally productive career is sufficient.

Practically, once automation begins producing more value than 25% or so of human workers we'll have to transition to a collective ownership model and either pay dividends directly out of widget production, grant futures on the same with subsidized transport, or UBI. I tend to prefer a distribution-of-production model because it eliminates a lot of the rent-seeking risk of UBI; your landlord is not going to want 2X the number of burgers and couches you get distributed as they'd happily double rent in dollars.

Once full automation hits (if it ever does; I can see augmented humans still producing up to 50% of GDP indefinitely [so far as anyone can predict anything past human-level intelligence] especially in healthcare/wellness) it's obvious that some kind of direct goods distribution is the only reasonable outcome; markets will still exist on top of this but they'll basically be optional participation for people who want to do that.

[throw1235435]

If we had done what you say (distribute wealth more evenly between people/corporations) more to the point I don't know if AI would of progressed as it has - companies would of been more selective with their investment money and previously AI was seen at best as a long shot bet. Most companies in the "real economy" can't afford to make too many of these kind of bets in general.

The main reason for the transformer architecture, and many other AI advancements really was "big tech" has lots of cash that they don't know what to do with. It seems the US system punishes dividends as well tax wise; so companies are incentivized to become like VC's -> buy lots of opportunities hoping one makes it big even if many end up losing.

[benlivengood]

Transformers grew out of the value-add side (autotranslation), though, not really the ad business side iirc. Value-add work still gets done in high-progressive-tax societies if it's valuable to a large fraction of people. Research into luxury goods is slowed by progressive tax rates, but the actual border between consumer and luxury goods actually rises a bit with redistributed wealth; more people can afford smartphones earlier and almost no one buys superyachts and so reinvestment into general technology research may actually be higher.

[wpm]

And I'm sure none of it was based on any public research from public universities, or private universities that got public grants.

[throw1235435]

Sure. I just know in most companies (seeing the numbers on projects in a number of them across industries now) funding projects which give time for people to think, ponder, publish white papers of new techniques is rare and economically not justifiable against other investments.

Put it this way - to have a project where people have the luxury to scratch their heads for awhile and to bet on something that may not actually be possible yet is something most companies can't justify to finance. Listening to the story of the transformer invention it sounds like one of these projects to me.

They may stand on the shoulders of giants that is true (at the very least they were trained in these institutions) but putting it together as it was - that was done in a commercial setting with shareholder funds.

In addition given the disruption to Google in general LLM's have done I would say, despite Gemini, it may of been better cost/benefit wise for Google NOT to invent the transformer architecture at all/yet or at least not publish a white paper for the world to see. As a use of shareholders funds the activity above probably isn't a wise one.

[encyclopedism]

I agree with much of what you say.

Career being the core of one's identity is so ingrained in society. Think about how schooling is directed towards producing what 'industry' needs. Education for educations sake isn't a thing. Capitalism see's to this and ensures so many avenues are closed to people.

Perhaps this will change but I fear it will be a painful transition to other modes of thinking and forming society.

Another problem is hoarding. Wealth inequality is one thing but the unadulterated hoarding by the very wealthy means that wealth is unable to circulate as freely as it ought to be. This burdens a society.

[theshrike79]

> Career being the core of one's identity is so ingrained in society

In AMERICAN society. Over there "what do you do?" is in the first 3 questions people ask each other when they meet.

I've known people for 20 years and I don't have the slightest clue what they do for a living, it's never came up. We talk about other things - their profession isn't a part of their personality.

[b40d-48b2-979e]

    Education for educations sake isn't a thing.

It is but only for select members of society. Off the top of my head, those with benefits programs to go after that opportunity like 100% disabled veterans, or the wealthy and their families.