I don't get this sentiment. Think of the future innovations possible with faster research and computation - space exploration, DNA-based health improvements, robotic helpers - read a few sci-fi books to imagine what the future can be! Computer science doesn't have to end with everybody getting laid off due to no more CRUD apps needed.

▲

timdiggerm 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It doesn't have to, sure, maybe, but what indication do you see that the owners of these companies have any future in mind other than one in which they are in control of the majority of the wealth and power? These are private companies, not publicly owned infrastructure.

▲

wartywhoa23 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Selling points straight from AI PR department texbooks, try better.

▲

jstummbillig 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Humans are terribly bad at empathy and ethics.

If you, like me, don't like the idea of your standard of living dropping to that of even just the mean human being on earth, I find it extremely painful to watch people justifying their way around not trying absolutely anything to raise everyone to at least our current level. Increasing productivity is demonstrably such a way, while many other experiments are so far just that: Experiments + wishful thinking.

If that merely means realigning/cutting current jobs (a process, that is ongoing from the start of human civilization itself, which brought us prosperity and why the fuck would it stop now) to me it's a moral obligation to deal with that at some other level.

There is tons to do here, certainly including how we will do redistribution better, and quickly, etc. Let's get to it.

	▲	wartywhoa23 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Let's get to it And do what exactly? Subscribe for corporate AI brain implants? How does that solve inequality? Also, thinking that you can bring low standards of living up to be on par with high in the current political landscape is a bit like that early Soviet space era promise about blooming apple trees on Mars. It is guaranteed that they can only become equal by lowering the high.

▲

genidoi 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Even if you don't agree with the sentiment it's not hard to understand. The pace of AI improvement has strictly accelerated, and strict acceleration is likely going to be the way things go from here. To many, this means mourning a steadier future that is no longer likely to happen.

▲

desterothx 19 hours ago | parent [-]

i dont really see strict acceleration, in fact i would say weve kept up roughly the same velocity since the first reasoning models

▲

agent_turtle 17 hours ago | parent [-]

if anything we've slowed down. i have no clue what the acceleration folks are talking about. we've been getting diminishing returns on models; the growth has been in usage and tools.

	▲	idbnstra 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		yeah, while gpt-6 is impressive, is it really as impressive as people thought it would be back in the times of gpt 3.5 or 4? let alone "omg ai acceleration agi" levels of impressive?