[ahf8Aithaex7Nai]

Yes, these people are publicly warning about the risks of AI. Altman is promoting regulation that clearly favors OpenAI. This is called regulatory capture. It aims to strengthen one's own position. Furthermore, the claim that these companies cannot shape economies is simply false. They decide how quickly they deploy, which industries they automate, whether they cooperate with unions, etc. These are all decisions that shape the economy.

Widespread job losses as a path to post-work are about as plausible as a car accident as a path to bringing a vehicle to a standstill. You would have to be from another planet (or a sociopath) not to understand that this violates boundary conditions that we implicitly want to leave intact.

[ben_w]

> They decide how quickly they deploy, which industries they automate, whether they cooperate with unions, etc. These are all decisions that shape the economy.

They control how quickly they deploy, but I don't see how they have any control over the rest: "which industries they automate" is a function of how well the model has generalised. All the medical information, laws and case histories, all the source code, they're still only "ok"; and how are they, as a model provider in the US, supposed to cooperate (or not) with a trade union in e.g. Brandenburg whose bosses are using their services?

> Widespread job losses as a path to post-work are about as plausible as a car accident as a path to bringing a vehicle to a standstill.

Certainly what I fear.

Any given UBI is only meaningful if it is connected to the source of economic productivity; if a government is offering it, it must control that source; if the source is AI (and robotics), that government must control the AI/robots.

If governments wait until the AI is ready, the companies will have the power to simply say "make me"; if the governments step in before the AI is ready, they may simply find themselves out-competed by businesses in jurisdictions whose governments are less interested in intervention.

And even if a government pulls it off, how does that government remain, long-term, friendly to its own people? Even democracies do not last forever.

[squeefers]

> Widespread job losses as a path to post-work

who exactly is paying for you to live and why would they be so kind?

[ahf8Aithaex7Nai]

I want to live. And if you threaten my life, I will defend myself with whatever means I have at my disposal. It makes no difference whether you threaten me by taking away my livelihood or by withholding it from me. You therefore have a choice. Either you value my life as you value your own, or there will be war between us. And that is a war you will not win, because you are not only waging it against me, but against all people whose right to life you wish to deny.

[ben_w]

Notwithstanding that I do not believe he is competent, Musk is currently talking about turning the entire moon into a space data center factory, specifically with a capacity so large that the resulting products of said factory could freeze the tropics just by blocking out the sun.

It is fortunate for him that those of us who understand the implications of this, do not believe he can do it.

Do you believe he could do it? Would you act against him now, when most people think his success in this endevour is implausible? Or wait until he demonstates all the parts necessary, at which point action against him is impossible? Or do you believe his claims that him doing this will render work unnecessary rather than, as I fear, making it impossible without also making it unnecessary?

What about everyone else that you think would be on your side? If you need everyone on-side, timing matters too.

[ahf8Aithaex7Nai]

Sorry, man, but I can't follow the plot. Why exactly do data centers from the moon block out the sun and freeze the tropics and make work unnecessary? Serious question: Are you okay? I hope you're just making fun of my last answer a little.

[ben_w]

> Why exactly do data centers from the moon block out the sun

Musk wants to make a data center *factory* on the Moon, with an output of 1000 TW/year of satellites which are (supposedly) going to be launched from the moon.

I have done the maths on this, and suspect Musk used Grok for this plan, those numbers are on the edge of what's plausible for the thermodynamic limits of rearranging atoms, even with engineering that nobody's actually designed yet. But let's disregard my mere opinion that this is beyond him and say he solves all those technical difficulties:

If you built that much each year, given how long it lasts, the physical size of that many watts of PV-powered satellites is enough to block enough sunlight as to lower the average temperature of planet Earth by 33°C immediately, without accounting for any additional affects from how ice reflects more light than unfrozen land and water. Those feedback mechanisms can plausibly make it more like 48°C cooling.

> and make work unnecessary

Note: I am not making that claim, Musk is. Musk doesn't have a good answer to this, just vague platitudes about how AI can do all the work, not why his AI and his robots are going to give everyone (and not just his fans) luxury.

> Serious question: Are you okay?

No. I see the world's richest man sowing chaos, and demanding the removal of all checks on his plan to gain even more power both by political campaigning and by using phrases such as "robot army" within his own companies, and when his AI calls itself "Mecha Hitler" the military of the world's largest economy decides to pay for its use and then goes on to make threats against other competing AI companies that don't want to be involved in the military.

[ben_w]

That's a summary of my point, yes.

If I phrase it that succinctly, people tend to reply "democracy!" without considering who has the power and how they behave.