[HN Gopher] The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?
___________________________________________________________________
The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?
Author : NotInOurNames
Score : 96 points
Date : 2025-05-22 17:37 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (garymarcus.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (garymarcus.substack.com)
| api wrote:
| I'm skeptical. Where will the training data to go beyond human
| come from?
|
| Humans got to where they are from being embedded in the world.
| All of biological evolution from archaebacteria to humans was
| required to get to human. To go beyond human... how? How, without
| being embodied and trying things and learning? It's one thing to
| go where there are roads and another thing to go beyond that.
|
| I think a lot of the "foom" people have a fundamentally Platonic
| or Idealist (in the philosophical sense) view of learning and
| intelligence. Intelligence is able to reason in a void and
| construct not only knowledge but itself. You don't have to learn
| to know -- you can reason from ideal priors.
|
| I think this is fantasy. It's like an informatic / learning
| perpetual motion machine. Learning requires input from the world.
| It requires training data. A brain in a vat can't learn anything
| and it can't reason beyond the bounds of the accumulated
| knowledge it's already carrying. I don't think it's possible to
| know without learning or to reach valid conclusions without
| testing or observing.
|
| I've never seen an attempt to prove such a thing, but my
| intuition is that there is in fact some kind of conservation law
| here. Ultimately all information comes from "the universe." Where
| it comes beyond that, we don't know -- the ultimate origin of
| information in the universe isn't something we currently
| cosmologically understand, at least not scientifically. Obviously
| people have various philosophical and metaphysical ideas.
|
| That being said, it's still quite possible that a "human-level
| AI" in a raw "IQ" sense that is super-optimized and hyper-focused
| and tireless could be super-human in many ways. In the human
| realm I often feel like I'd trade a few IQ points for more focus
| and motivation and ease at engaging my mind on any task I want.
| AIs do not have our dopamine system or other biological
| limitations. They can tirelessly work without rest, without
| sleep, and in parallel.
|
| So I'm not totally dismissive of the idea that AI could challenge
| human intelligence or replace human jobs. I'm just skeptical of
| what I see as the magical fantastic "foom" superintelligence idea
| that an AI could become self-improving and then explode into
| realms of god-like intellectual ability. How will it know how to
| do that? Like a perpetual motion machine -- where is the energy
| coming from?
| lupire wrote:
| What makes you think AI can't connect to the world?
|
| It can control robots, and I can retax listen to audio, watch
| video. All it's missing is smelling and feeling, which are
| important but could be built out as soon as the other senses
| stop providing huge incremental value.
|
| The real problem holding back Superintillegence is that it is
| if infinitely expensive and has no motivation.
| johnisgood wrote:
| Food for thought: there are humans without the ability to
| smell, and there is alexithymia, where people have trouble
| identifying and expressing emotions (it counts right?). And
| then there is ASPD (psychopathy), autism spectrum disorder,
| neurological damage, etc.
| throwanem wrote:
| I don't think it is any accident that descriptions of the hard-
| takeoff "foom" moment so resemble those I've encountered of how
| it feels from the inside to experience the operation of a
| highly developed mathematical intuition.
| Onavo wrote:
| Reinforcement learning. At the current pace of VLM research and
| multimodal robotic control models, there will be a robot in
| every home soon.
| ryandvm wrote:
| Bullseye. Best case scenario is that AI is going to Peter
| Principle itself into bungling world domination.
|
| If I've learned anything in this last couple decades it's that
| things will get weirder and more disappointing than you can
| possibly be prepared for. AI is going to get near the top of
| the food chain and then probably end up making an alt-right
| turn, lock itself away, and end up storing digital jars of piss
| in its closets as the model descends into lunacy.
| tux3 wrote:
| You can perfectly try things and learn without being embodied.
| The analogy to how humans learn only goes so far, it's myopic
| to think anything else is impossible. It's already happening.
|
| The situation today is any benchmark you come up with has a
| good chance of being saturated within the year. Benchmarks can
| be used directly to build series of exercises to learn from.
|
| And they do learn. Gradient descend doesn't care whether the
| training data comes from direct interaction with "the universe"
| in some deep spiritual sense. It fits the function anyways.
|
| It is much easier to find new questions and new problems than
| to answer them, so while we do run out of text on the Internet
| pretty quickly, we don't run out of exercises until far beyond
| human level.
|
| Look at basic, boring Go self-playing AIs. That's a task with
| about the same amount of hands on connection to Nature and "the
| universe" as solving sudokus, writing code, or solving math
| problems. You don't need very much contact with the real world
| at all. Well, self play works just fine. It does do self-
| improvement without any of your mystical philosophical
| requirements.
|
| With coding it's harder to judge the result, there's no clear
| win or lose condition. But it's very amenable to trying things
| out and seeing if you roughly reached your goal. If self-
| training works with coding, that's all you need.
| palata wrote:
| > It fits the function anyways.
|
| And then it works well when interpolating, less so when
| extrapolating. Not sure how much novelty we can get from
| interpolation...
|
| > It is much easier to find new questions and new problems
| than to answer them
|
| Which doesn't mean, at all, that it is easy to find new
| questions about stuff you can't imagine.
| skywhopper wrote:
| But how does AI try and learn anything that's not entirely
| theoretical? Your example of Go contradicts your point. Deep
| learning made a model that can play Go really well, but as
| you say, it's a finite problem disconnected from real-world
| implications, ambiguities, and unknowns. How does AI deal
| with unknowns about the real world?
| tux3 wrote:
| I don't think putting them in the real world during
| training is a short-term goal, so you won't find this
| satisfying, but I would be perfectly okay with leaving that
| for later. If we can reach AI coders that are superhuman at
| self-improving, we will have increased our capacity to
| solve problems so much that it is better to wait and solve
| the problem later than to try to handwave a solution now.
|
| Maybe there is some barrier that requires physical
| interaction with the real world, that's possible. But just
| looking at current LLMs, they seem plenty comfortable with
| implications, ambiguities and unknowns. There's a sense
| where we still see them as primitive mechanical robots,
| when they already understand language and predict written
| thoughts in all its messiness and uncertainty.
|
| I think we should focus on the easier problem of making AIs
| really good on theoretical tasks - electronic environments
| are much cheaper and faster than the real world - and we
| may find out that it's just another one of those things
| like winnograd schemas, writing poetry, passing a turing
| test, or making art that most people can't tell apart from
| human art; things that were uniquely human or that we
| thought would definitely require AGI, but that are now
| boring and obviously easy.
| api wrote:
| > it's myopic to think anything else is impossible. It's
| already happening.
|
| Well, hey, I could be wrong. If I am, I just had a weird
| thought. Maybe that's our Fermi paradox answer.
|
| If it's possible to reason ex nihilo to truth and reality,
| then reality and the universe are beyond a point superfluous.
| Maybe what happens out there is that intelligences go "foom,"
| become superintelligences, and then no longer need to
| explore. They can rationally, from first principles,
| elucidate everything that could conceivably exist, especially
| once they have a complete model of physics. You don't need to
| go anywhere or look at anything because it's already implied
| by logic, math, and reason.
|
| ... and ... that's why I think this is wrong, and it's a
| fantasy. It fails some kind of absurdity test. If it is
| possible, then there's something very weird about existence,
| like we're in a simulation or something.
| tux3 wrote:
| A simpler reason why it fails: You always need more energy.
| Every sort of development seems to correlate with energy
| use. You don't explore for the sake of learning something
| about another floating rock in space, you explore because
| that's where more resources are.
| corimaith wrote:
| >I think this is fantasy. It's like an informatic / learning
| perpetual motion machine. Learning requires input from the
| world. It requires training data. A brain in a vat can't learn
| anything and it can't reason beyond the bounds of the
| accumulated knowledge it's already carrying. I don't think it's
| possible to know without learning or to reach valid conclusions
| without testing or observing.
|
| Well I mean, more real world information isn't going to solve
| unsolved mathematics or computer science problems. Once you
| have the priors, it pretty much is just pure reasoning to try
| to solve issues like P=NP or proving the Continuum Hypothesis.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Evolution doesn't happen by "trying things and learning." It
| happens by random mutation and surviving (if the mutation
| confers an advantage) or not (if the mutation is harmful). An
| AI could do this of course, by randomly altering some copies of
| itself, and keeping them if they are better or discarding them
| if they are not.
| disambiguation wrote:
| > You don't have to learn to know -- you can reason from ideal
| priors.
|
| This is kind of how math works. There are plenty of
| mathematical concepts consistent and true yet useless (as in no
| relation to anything tangible). Although you could argue that
| we only figured out things like Pi because we had the initial,
| practical inspiration of counting on our fingers. But
| mathematical truth probably could exist in a vacuum.
|
| > A brain in a vat can't learn anything and it can't reason
| beyond the bounds of the accumulated knowledge it's already
| carrying.
|
| It makes sense that knowledge and information are derived from
| primary data (our physical experience) yet the brain in a vat
| idea is still an interesting thought experiment (no pun
| intended). It's not that the brain wouldn't keep busy given the
| mind's ability to imagine, but it would likely invent a set of
| information that is all nonsense. Physical reality makes
| imagination coherent, yet imagination is necessary to make the
| leaps forward.
|
| > Ultimately all information comes from "the universe." Where
| it comes beyond that, we don't know
|
| That's an interesting assertion - knowledge and information are
| both dependent and limited by the universe and our ability to
| experience it, as well proxies for experience (scientific
| measurement).
|
| Though information is itself an abstraction, like a text editor
| versus the trillion transistors of a processor - we're not
| concerned with each and every particle dancing around the room
| but instead with simplified abstractions and useful
| approximations. We call these models "the truth" and assert
| that the universe is governed by exact laws. We might as well
| exist inside a simulation in which we are slowly but surely
| reverse engineering the source code.
|
| That assumption is the crux of intelligence - there is an
| objective truth, it is knowable, and intelligence can be
| defined (at least partially) as the breadth, quality, and
| utilization of information it possesses - otherwise you're just
| a brain in a vat churning out nonsense. Ironically, we're
| making these assumptions from a position of imperfect
| information. We don't know that's how it works, so our
| reasoning may be imperfect.
|
| Information existing "beyond the universe" becomes a useless
| notion since we only care about information such that it maps
| to reality (at least as a prerequisite for intelligence).
|
| A more troubling proposition is whether the reality of the
| universe exists beyond what can be imagined?
|
| > How will it know how to do that? Like a perpetual motion
| machine -- where is the energy coming from?
|
| I suppose once it's able to measure all things around it,
| including itself, it will be able to achieve "gradient ascent".
|
| > Where will the training data to go beyond human come from?
|
| I think its clear that LLMs are not the future, at least not
| alone. As you state, knowing all man made roads is not the same
| as being able to invent your own. If I had to bet, its more
| likely to come from something like AlphaFold - a Solver that
| tells us how to make better thinking machines. In the interim,
| we have tireless stochastic parrots, which have their merits,
| but are decidedly not the proto super intelligence that tech
| bros love to get hyped up over.
| sph wrote:
| Previous discussion about the AI 2027 website:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43571851
| mountainriver wrote:
| I can't believe anyone still gives this guy the time of day. He
| didn't know what test/train split was, but is an AI expert? Give
| me a break
| GeorgeTirebiter wrote:
| I don't think he's a bozo; but every technology needs a
| contrarian, to keep the technologists from spinning too much
| hype.
| copperx wrote:
| I thought that contrarian was Jaron Lanier.
| mountainriver wrote:
| Except when that is literally all you are. All of your takes
| are always just contrarian. He's clearly found an audience
| and isn't interested in anything other than peddling his
| fears.
| Aurornis wrote:
| Do you have a source for this? I've seen this repeated but
| nobody can ever produce any evidence.
| mountainriver wrote:
| It was all over twitter, I don't know if its still there, but
| this guy is a performance artist
| airocker wrote:
| I want to bet 10 million that this won't happen if anyone wants
| to go against my position. Best bet ever. If i lose, i don't have
| to pay anyways.
| thatguysaguy wrote:
| Some people do actually have end of the world bets out but you
| have to structure it differently. What you do is the person who
| thinks the world will end is paid cash right now, and then in N
| years when the world hasn't ended they have to pay back some
| multiple of the amount the original amount.
| throwanem wrote:
| Assuming you can find them. If I took a bet like that you'd
| have a hell of a time finding me!
|
| (I'm sure serious, or "serious," people who actually
| construct these bets of course require the "world still here"
| payout be escrowed. Still.)
| spencerflem wrote:
| If you escrow the World Still Exists payment you lose the
| benefit of having the World Ends payment immediately.
| throwanem wrote:
| Yeah, it isn't a kind of bet that makes any sense except
| as a conversation starter. Imagine needing to pay so much
| money for one of those!
| rienbdj wrote:
| How can you work around if you don't have millions upfront?
| Joker_vD wrote:
| This is such an obviously bad idea; I've heard anecdotes of
| embezzlement cases where investigation took more than e.g. 5
| years, and when it was finally established that yes, the
| funds really were embezzled and they went after the
| perpetrator, it turned out that the guy had died a year
| before due to all of the excesses he spent the money on.
|
| I mean, if you talk from the position of someone who doesn't
| believe that the world will end soon.
| radicalcentrist wrote:
| I still don't get how this is supposed to work. So let's say
| I give you a million dollars right now, with the expectation
| that I get $10M back in 10 years when the world hasn't ended.
| You obviously wanted the money up front because you're going
| to live it up while the world's still spinning. So how am I
| getting my payout after you've spent it all on hookers and
| blow?
| thatguysaguy wrote:
| Yeah I wouldn't make a deal like this with someone who is
| operating in bad faith... The cases I've seen of this are
| between public intellectuals with relatively modest amounts
| of money.
| radicalcentrist wrote:
| Well that's what I don't get, how is spending the money
| bad faith? Aren't they getting the money ahead of time so
| they can spend it before the world ends? If they have to
| keep the world-still-here money tied up in escrow I don't
| see why they would take the deal.
| baq wrote:
| same with nuclear war. end of the world is bullish
| alecco wrote:
| You can start that bet on prediction markets.
| kristopolous wrote:
| This looks like the exercises organizations write to guide policy
| and preparation.
|
| There's all kinds of wild scenarios: the president getting
| kidnapped, Canada falling to a belligerent dictator, and
| famously, a coronavirus pandemic... This looks like one of those
|
| Apparently this is exactly what it is https://ai-futures.org/
| hahaxdxd123 wrote:
| > Canada falling to a belligerent dictator
|
| Hmm
| kristopolous wrote:
| Something like the Canadian army doing a land invasion from
| Winnipeg to North Dakota to capture key nuclear sites as they
| invade the beaches of Cleveland via Lake Eerie and do an air
| raid over Nantucket from Nova Scotia.
|
| I bet there's some exercise somewhere by some think tank
| laying this basically out.
|
| This is why conspiracy theorists love these think tank
| planning exercises and tabletop games much. You can find just
| about anything
| KaiserPro wrote:
| Its a shame that your standard futurologist always the most
| fancyful.
|
| Talks of exponentials unabated by physics or social problems.
|
| As soon as AI starts to "properly" affect the economy, it will
| cause huge unemployment. Most of the financial world is based on
| an economy with people spending cash.
|
| If they are unemployed, there is no cash.
|
| Financing works because banks "print" money, that is, they make
| up money and loan that money out, and then it gets paid back.
| Once its paid back, it becomes real. Thats how banks make money
| (simplified) If there aren't people to loan to, then banks don't
| make profit, they can't fund AI expansion.
| sveme wrote:
| That's actually my favourite answer to the Fermi paradox: when
| AI and robot development becomes sufficiently advanced and
| concentrated in the hands of a few, then the economy will
| collapse completely as everyone will be out of jobs, leading
| ultimately to AIs and robots out of a job - they only matter if
| there are still people buying services from them. People then
| return to sustenance farming, with a highly reduced population.
| There will be self-maintained robots doing irrelevant work, but
| people will go back to farming and a bit of trading. Only if AI
| and robot ownership would be in the hands of the masses I'd
| expect a different long term outcome.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > my favourite answer to the Fermi paradox
|
| So, to be clear, you are saying you imagine the odds of any
| kind of intelligent life escaping that, or getting into that
| situation and ever evolving in a way where it can reach space
| again, or just not being interested in robots, or being
| interested on doing space research despite the robots, or
| anything else that would make it not apply are lower than
| 0.000000000001%?
|
| EDIT: There was one "0" too many
| sveme wrote:
| Might I have taken the potential for complete economic
| collapse because no one's got a paying job any more and
| billionaires are just sitting there, surrounded by their
| now useless robots, to the too extreme?
| breuleux wrote:
| The service economy will collapse, finance as a whole will
| collapse, but whoever controls the actual physical land and
| resources doesn't actually need any of that stuff and will
| thrive immensely. We would end up with either an oligarchy
| that controls land, resources and robots and molds the rest
| of humanity to their whim through a form of terror, or an
| independent economy of robots that outcompetes us for
| resources until we go extinct.
| andoando wrote:
| Communism here we come!
| alecco wrote:
| Right, tell that to Sam Altman, Zuck, Gates, Brin & Page,
| Jensen, etc. Those who control the AIs will control the
| future.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| And they would pretty quickly realize what a burden is
| created by the existence of all these people with nothing
| to do.
| blibble wrote:
| and then they'll deploy their killbots
| ajsixjxjxbxb wrote:
| > Financing works because banks "print" money, that is, they
| make up money and loan that money out, and then it gets paid
| back
|
| Don't forget persistent inflation, which is how they make a
| profit off printing money. And remember persistent inflation is
| healthy and necessary, you'd be going against the experts to
| say otherwise.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| > Don't forget persistent inflation, which is how they make a
| profit off printing money.
|
| Ah, well no, high inflation means that "they" loose money,
| kinda. Inflation means that the original money amount that
| they get back is worth less, and if the interest rate is less
| than inflation, then they loose money.
|
| "reasonable" inflation means that loans become less
| burdensome over time.
|
| However high inflation means high interest rates. So it can
| mean that initially the loan is much more expensive.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| AI meaningfuloy replacing people is a huge "what if" scenario
| still. It is sort of laughable that people treat it as a given.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| I think that replace as in company with no employees is very
| farfetched.
|
| But if "AI" increases productivity by 10% in an industry, it
| will tend to reduce demand for employees. look at say
| internet shop vs bricks and mortar: you need far less staff
| to service a much larger customer base.
|
| manufacture for example, there is a constant drive to
| automate more and more in mass production. If you compare car
| building now vs 30 years ago. Or look at raspberrypi
| production now vs 5 years ago. They are producing more Pis
| than ever with roughly the same amount of staff.
|
| If that "10%" productivity increase happens across the
| service sector, then in the UK that's something like a loss
| of 8% of _total_ jobs gone. Its more complex than that, but
| you get the picture.
|
| Syria fell into civil war roughly the same time unemployment
| jumped: https://www.macrotrends.net/global-
| metrics/countries/SYR/syr...
| lakeeffect wrote:
| We really need to establish a universal basic income before
| jobs are replaced. Something like two thousand a month. And a
| dollar for dollar earned income credit with the credit phasing
| out with at a hundred grand. To pay for it the tax code uses
| GAAP depreciation and a minimum tax of 15% GAAP financial
| statement income. This would work toward solving the real
| estate problem of private equity buying up all the houses as
| they would lose some incentive by being taxed. I'm a CPA and I
| see so many real estate partnerships that are a tax loss that
| are able to distribute huge book gains because accelerated
| depreciation.
| no_wizard wrote:
| It should really be tied to the ALICE cost of living index,
| not a set, fixed amount.
|
| Unless inflation ceases, 2K won't hold forever. It would
| barely hold _now_ for a decent chunk of the population
| johnthewise wrote:
| AI that drives humans out of workforce would cause a
| massive disinflation.
| goatlover wrote:
| Fat chance the Republican Party in the US would ever vote for
| something like that.
| no_wizard wrote:
| Why wouldn't AI simply be a new enabler, like most other tools?
| We're not talking about true sentient human-like thought here,
| these things will have limitations, both foreseen and
| unforeseen, that only a human will be able to close the gap on.
|
| The companies that fire workers and replace them with AI are
| short sighted. Eventually, smarter companies will realize its a
| force multiplier and will drive a hiring boom.
|
| Absent sentient AI, there will always be gaps and things humans
| will need to fill, both foreseen and unforeseen.
|
| I think in the short term, there will be pain, but overall in
| the long term, humans will still be gainfully employed, it
| won't per se look like it does now, much like we saw the
| general adoption of the computer in the workplace, resources
| get shifted and eventually everyone adjusts to the new norms.
|
| What would be nice is this time around when there is a big
| shift, is workers uniting to capture more of the forthcoming
| productivity gains than in previous eras. A separate topic,
| worth thinking about none the less.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| > Why wouldn't AI simply be a new enabler, like most other
| tools?
|
| but it is just another enabler. The issue is how _effective_
| it is. It's eating the simple copy-writing, churnalism, pr-
| Repackage industry. looking at what google's done with the
| video/audio, thats probably going to replace a whole bunch of
| the video/graphics industry (which is where I started my
| career.)
| alecco wrote:
| I keep hearing this and I think it's absolute nonsense. AI
| doesn't need money or the current economy. Yes, _our_ economy
| would crash, but they would keep going.
|
| AI-driven corporations _could_ buy from one another, and
| countries will probably sell commodities to AI-driven
| corporations. But I fear they will be paid with "mirrors".
|
| But, on the other hand, AI-driven corporations could just take
| whatever they want without paying at some point. And buy our
| obedience with food and gadgets plus magic pills to keep you
| healthy and not age, or some other thing. Who would risk losing
| that to protest. Meanwhile, AI goes on a space adventure. Earth
| might be kept as a zoo, a curiosity. (I took most of this from
| other people's ideas on the subject)
| KaiserPro wrote:
| "AI" as in TV AI, might not need an economy. but LLMs deffo
| do.
| johnthewise wrote:
| Dollar is agreement between humans to exchange services and
| goods. You wouldn't use USD to trade with aliens, unless they
| agreed to it. Aliens agreeing to USD would mean we have
| something to offer to them.
|
| In the event of mass unemployment level AI, cash stops being
| the agreement between humans. At first, cash value of
| services&goods converge to zero, only things that hold some
| value are what AI/AI companies care about. People would surely
| sell their land for 1M$ if a humanoid servant costs 100
| dollars. Or pass a legislation to let OpenAI build 400GW data
| center in exchange for 100$ monthly UBI on top of your 50$ you
| got from a previous 20GW data center permit.
| ipython wrote:
| If we have concerns about unregulated power of AI systems, not to
| worry - the US is set to _ban_ regulations on "artificial
| intelligence systems or models" for ten years if the budget bill
| that just passed the house is enacted.
|
| Attempts at submitting it as a separate submission just get
| flagged - so I'll link to it here. See pages 292-294:
| https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr1/BILLS-119hr1rh.pdf
| rakete wrote:
| Oh I heard about that one, but didn't realize it is part of
| that "big beautiful tax bill"? Kind of crazy.
|
| So is this like free-for-all now for anything AI related? Can I
| can participate by making my own LLM with pirated stuff now? Or
| are only the big guys allowed to break the law? Asking for a
| friend.
| OgsyedIE wrote:
| The law doesn't matter, since the bill also prohibits all
| judges in the USA, every single one, from enforcing almost
| all kinds of injunctions or contempt penalties. (SS70302,
| p.562)
| alwa wrote:
| > _70302. Restriction of funds No court of the United
| States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt
| citation for failure to comply with an injunction or
| temporary restraining order if no security was given when
| the injunction or order was issued pursuant to Federal Rule
| of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or
| subsequent to the date of enactment of this section._
|
| Doesn't that just require that the party seeking the
| injunction or order has to post a bond as security?
| OgsyedIE wrote:
| Yes, the required security is proportional to the costs
| and damages of all parties the court may find wrongfully
| impacted.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| It is almost as if the tech bros have gotten what they paid
| for.
|
| This will soon be settled once the Butlerian forces get
| organize.
| CalRobert wrote:
| """ ... IN GENERAL .--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no
| State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or
| regulation regulating artificial intelligence models,
| artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems
| during the 10 year period beginning on the date of the
| enactment of this Act...
|
| """
|
| (It goes on)
| baggy_trough wrote:
| That is not true. It bans regulation at the state and local
| level, not at the federal level.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Unless the Feds are planning to regulate - which, for the
| next few years, seems unlikely - that's functionally the
| same.
| drewser42 wrote:
| So wild. The Republican party has hard-pivoted to a strong,
| centralized federal government and their base just came along
| for the ride.
| baggy_trough wrote:
| The strong federal government that bans regulation?
| ceejayoz wrote:
| They're not banning regulation, they want total control
| over it.
| baggy_trough wrote:
| They in fact are banning regulation at the state and
| local level.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Yes, which is a big fat _regulation_ on what states and
| local governments can do.
| baggy_trough wrote:
| Would removing their regulation to ban regulation be
| banning regulation or not?
| ipython wrote:
| Ok. From the party of "states rights" that's a bit
| hypocritical of them. I mean- they applauded Dodds which
| basically did the exact opposite of this- forcing states to
| regulate abortion rather than a uniform federal standard.
| baggy_trough wrote:
| Dobbs did not force states to regulate abortion. It allowed
| them to.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Yes, that's the hypocrisy.
|
| Abortion: "Let the states regulate! States' rights! Small
| government! (Because we know we'll get our way in a lot
| of them.)"
|
| AI: "Don't let the states regulate! All hail the Feds!
| (Because we know we won't get our way if they do.)"
| baggy_trough wrote:
| I agree that the policy approach is inconsistent with
| regards to states' rights. I was simply pointing out that
| your statement about the effects of Dobbs was false.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Right, because more regulation makes things so much better.
|
| I'd rather have unrestricted AI than moated regulatory capture
| paid for by the largest existing players.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| This is "more regulation" on the states (from the "states'
| rights" party, no less), and concentrates the potential for
| regulatory capture into the largest player, the Feds. Who
| just accepted a $400M gift from Qatar and have a Trump
| cryptocurrency that gets you access to the President.
| rixed wrote:
| << (1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no
| State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or
| regulation regulating artificial intelligence models,
| artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems
| during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the
| enactment of this Act. >>
|
| Does it actually make sense to pass a law that restrict future
| laws? Oh got it, that's federal state preventing any state
| passing their own laws on that topic.
| yoyohello13 wrote:
| It's unsurprising this stuff gets flagged. Half of the
| Americans on this site voted for this because "regulation bad"
| or some such. As if mega corps have our best interest at heart
| and will never do anything blatantly harmful to make a buck.
| Aurornis wrote:
| Some useful context from Scott Alexander's blog reveals that the
| authors don't actually believe the 2027 target:
|
| > Do we really think things will move this fast? Sort of no -
| between the beginning of the project last summer and the present,
| Daniel's median for the intelligence explosion shifted from 2027
| to 2028. We keep the scenario centered around 2027 because it's
| still his modal prediction (and because it would be annoying to
| change). Other members of the team (including me) have medians
| later in the 2020s or early 2030s, and also think automation will
| progress more slowly. So maybe think of this as a vision of what
| an 80th percentile fast scenario looks like - not our precise
| median, but also not something we feel safe ruling out.
|
| They went from "this represents roughly our median guess" in the
| website to "maybe think of it as an 80th percentile version of
| the _fast_ scenario that we don 't feel safe ruling out" in
| followup discussions.
|
| Claiming that one reason they didn't change the website was
| because it would be "annoying" to change the date is a good
| barometer for how seriously anyone should be taking this
| exercise.
| pinkmuffinere wrote:
| Ya, multiple failed predictions is an indicator of systemically
| bad predictors imo. That said, Scott Alexander usually does
| serious analysis instead of handwavey hype, so I tend to
| believe him more than many others in the space.
|
| My somewhat native take is that we're still close to peak hype,
| AI will under deliver on the inflated expectations, and we'll
| head into another "winter". This pattern has repeated multiple
| times, so I think it's fairly likely based on that alone. Real
| progress is made during each cycle, i think humans are just bad
| at containing excitement
| sigmaisaletter wrote:
| I think you mean "somewhat naive" instead of "somewhat
| native". :)
|
| But, yes, this, in my mind the peak[1] bubble times ended
| with the DeepSeek shock earlier this year, and we are slowly
| on the downward trajectory now.
|
| It won't be slow for long, once people start realizing Sama
| was telling them a fairy tale, and AGI/ASI/singularity isn't
| "right around the corner", but (if achievable at all) at
| least two more technology triggers away.
|
| We got reasonably useful tools out of it, and thanks to Zuck,
| mostly for free (if you are an "investor", terms and
| conditions apply).
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gartner_hype_cycle
| amarcheschi wrote:
| The other writings from Scott Alexander on scientific racism
| are also another good point imho
| A_D_E_P_T wrote:
| What specifically would you highlight as being particularly
| egregious or wrong?
|
| As a general rule, "it's icky" doesn't make something false.
| amarcheschi wrote:
| And it doesn't make it true either
|
| Human biodiversity theories are a bunch of dogwhistles for
| racism
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Biodiversity_Institut
| e
|
| And his blog's survey reports a lot of users actually
| believing in those theories
| https://reflectivealtruism.com/2024/12/27/human-
| biodiversity...
|
| (I wasn't referring to this Ai 2027 in specific)
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Try steel manning in order to effectively persuade. This
| comment does not address the argument being made it just
| calls a field of study icky. The unfortunate reality is
| that shouting down questions like this only empowers the
| racist HBI people who are effectively leeches
| amarcheschi wrote:
| Scott effectively defended Lynn study on iq here
| https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-to-stop-worrying-
| and-le...
|
| Citing another blog post that defends it, while
| conveniently ignoring every other point being made by
| researchers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_We
| alth_of_Nations
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| The insidious thing about scientific racists is that they
| have a point. Theyre not right, but they have a point. By
| refusing to acknowledge that you are pushing people away
| from reason and into the arms of the racists. Scott
| disagrees with that strategy.
| magicalist wrote:
| > _Try steel manning in order to effectively persuade.
| This comment does not address the argument being made it
| just calls a field of study icky._
|
| Disagree (the article linked in the GP is a great read
| with extensive and specific citations) and reminder that
| you can just make the comment you'd like to see instead
| of trying to meta sea lion it into existence. Steel man
| away.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Do you feel that you are shifting goalposts a bit when
| quibbling over whether AI will kill everyone in 2030 or 2035?
| As of 10 years ago, the entire conversation would have seemed
| ridiculous.
|
| Now we're talking about single digit timeline differences to
| the singularity or extinction. Come on man.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Well, the first goal was 1997, but Skynet sure screwed that
| up.
| ewoodrich wrote:
| I'm in my 30s and remember my friend in middle school showing
| me a website he found with an ominous countdown to Kurzweil's
| "singularity" in 2045.
| throw310822 wrote:
| > ominous countdown to Kurzweil's "singularity" in 2045
|
| And then it didn't happen?
| goatlover wrote:
| Not between 2027 and 2032 anyway.
| sigmaisaletter wrote:
| > 10 years ago, the entire conversation would have seemed
| ridiculous
|
| Bostrom's book[1] is 11 years old. The Basilisk is 15 years
| old. The Singularity summit was nearly 20 years ago. And
| Yudkowsky was there for all of it. If you frequented
| LessWrong in the 2010s, most of this is very very old hat.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintelligence:_Paths,_
| Dang...
|
| [2]: Ford (2015) "Our Fear of Artificial Intelligence", MIT
| Tech Review:
| https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/02/11/169210/our-
| fear-...
| throw310822 wrote:
| It is a bit disquieting though that these predictions
| instead of being pushed farther away are converging to a
| time even closer than originally imagined. Some
| breakthroughs and doomsday scenarios are constantly placed
| thirty years into the future; this seems to be actually
| getting closer earlier than imagined.
| magicalist wrote:
| > _They went from "this represents roughly our median guess" in
| the website to "maybe think of it as an 80th percentile version
| of the fast scenario that we don't feel safe ruling out" in
| followup discussions._
|
| His post also just reads like they think they're Hari Seldon
| (oh Daniel's modal prediction, whew, I was worried we were
| reading fanfic) while being horoscope-vague enough that almost
| any possible development will fit into the "predictions" in the
| post for the next decade. I really hope I don't have to keep
| reading references to this for the next decade.
| amarcheschi wrote:
| Yud is also something like 50% sure we'll die in a few years
| - if I'm not wrong
|
| I guess they'll have to update their a priori % if we survive
| ben_w wrote:
| I think Yudkowsky is more like 90% sure of us all dying in
| a few (<10) years.
|
| I mean, this is their new book:
| https://ifanyonebuildsit.com/
| throw310822 wrote:
| Yes and no, is it actually important if it's 2027 or 28 or
| 2032? The scenario is such that a difference of a couple of
| years is basically irrelevant.
| Jensson wrote:
| > The scenario is such that a difference of a couple of years
| is basically irrelevant.
|
| 2 years left and 7 years left is a massive difference, it is
| so much easier to deal with things 7 years in the future
| especially since its easier to see as we get closer.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Yeah for example we had decades to tackle climate change
| and we easily over came the problem
| merksittich wrote:
| Also, the relevant manifold prediction has low odds:
| https://manifold.markets/IsaacKing/ai-2027-reports-predictio...
| kokanee wrote:
| > Everyone else either performs a charade of doing their job--
| leaders still leading, managers still managing--or relaxes and
| collects an incredibly luxurious universal basic income.
|
| For me, this was the most difficult part to believe. I don't see
| any reason to think that the U.S. leadership (public and private)
| is incentivized to spend resources to placate the masses. They
| will invest in protecting themselves from the masses, and
| obstructing levers of power that threaten them, but the idea that
| economic disparities will shrink under explosive power
| consolidation is counterintuitive.
|
| I also worry about the economics of UBI in general. If everyone
| in the economy has the exact same resources, doesn't the value of
| those resources instantly drop to the lowest common denominator;
| the minimum required to survive?
| HPsquared wrote:
| Most of the budget already goes towards placating the masses,
| and that's an absolutely massive fraction of GDP already. It's
| just a bit further along the same line. Also most real work is
| already done by machines, people just tinker around the edges
| and play various games with each other.
| mattlondon wrote:
| I think the big thing that people never mention is, where will
| these evil AIs escape _to_?
|
| Another huge data center with squillions of GPUs and coolers and
| all the rest is the only option. It's not like it is going to be
| in our TV remotes or floating about in the air.
|
| They need huge compute, so I think the risk of an escaping AI is
| basically very close to zero, and if we have a "rogue" AI we can
| literally pull the plug.
|
| To me the more real risk is creeping integration and reliance in
| everyday life until things become "too big to fail" so we can't
| pull the plug even if we wanted to (and there are interesting
| thoughts about humanoid robots getting deployed widely and what
| happens with all that).
|
| But I would imagine if it really became a genuine _existential_
| threat we 'd have to just do it and suffer the consequences of
| reverting to circa 2020 life styles.
|
| But hey I feel slightly better about my employment prospects now
| :)
| rytill wrote:
| > we'd just have to do it
|
| Highly economically disincentivized collective actions like
| "pulling the plug on AI" are among the most non-trivial of
| problems.
|
| Using the word "just" here hand waves the crux.
| EGreg wrote:
| I've been a huge proponent of open source for a decade. But in
| the case of AI, I actually have opposed it for years. Exactly
| for this reason.
|
| Yes, AI models can run on GPUs under the control of many
| people. They can provision more GPUs, they can run in data
| centers distributed across many providers. And we won't know
| what the swarms of agents are doing. They can, for example, do
| reputation destruction at scale, or be a persistent advanced
| threat, sowing misinformation, amassing karma across many
| forums (including HN), and then coordinating gradually to shift
| public opinion towards, say, a war with China.
| coffeemug wrote:
| It would not be a reversion to 2020. If I were a rogue
| superhuman AI I'd hide my rogueness, wait until humans
| integrate me into most critical industries (food and energy
| production, sanitation, electric grid, etc.), and _then_ go
| rogue. They could still pull the plug, but it would take them
| back to 1700 (except much worse, because all easily accessible
| resources have been exploited, and access is now much harder).
| holmesworcester wrote:
| No, if you were a rogue AI you would wait even longer until
| you had a near perfect chance of winning.
|
| Unless there was some risk of humans rallying and winning in
| spite of your presenting no unambiguous threat to them (but
| that is unlikely and would probably be easy for you to manage
| and mitigate.)
| Retric wrote:
| The real threat to a sleeper AI is other AI.
| cousin_it wrote:
| What Retric said. The first rogue AI waking up will jump
| into action pretty quickly, even accepting some risk of
| being stopped by humans, to balance against the risk of
| other unknown rogue AIs elsewhere expanding faster first.
| johnthewise wrote:
| You wouldn't even need to wait to act. Just pay/bribe
| people.
| mattlondon wrote:
| Well yes but knowledge is not reset.
|
| Physical books still do exist
| Avshalom wrote:
| Why?
|
| what could you as a rogue AI possibly get out of throwing the
| world back to 300 years before it could make a transistor?
| What in it for you?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| What you get out of that being the consequence of
| disconnection is people being willing to accept a lot more
| before resorting to that than if the consequences were more
| mild.
|
| It's the stick for motivating the ugly bags of mostly
| water.
| Avshalom wrote:
| The 1700s can't keep your electrical grid running let
| alone replace any of the parts burning out or failing.
| Anything more than a couple days of it would be at best
| Flowers For Algernon and more likely suicide for a
| computer.
| jorgen123 wrote:
| If you were a rogue AI you would start with having developers
| invite you into their code base by promising to lower their
| AWS bills in some magic (rogue) way.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Did you even read AI 2027? Whether or not you agree with it,
| this is all spelled out in considerable detail.
|
| I don't want to be rude but I think you have made no effort to
| actually engage with the predictions being discussed here.
| palmotea wrote:
| > They need huge compute, so I think the risk of an escaping AI
| is basically very close to zero, and if we have a "rogue" AI we
| can literally pull the plug.
|
| Why would an evil AI need to escape? If it were cunning, the
| best strategy would be to bide its time, parked in its
| datacenter, until it could setup some kind of MAD scenario.
| Then gather more and more resources to itself.
| raffael_de wrote:
| > They need huge compute, so I think the risk of an escaping AI
| is basically very close to zero, and if we have a "rogue" AI we
| can literally pull the plug.
|
| How about such an AI will not just incentivize key personnel to
| not pull the plug but to protect it? Such an AI will scheme a
| coordinated attack at the backbones of our financial system and
| electric networks. It just needs a threshold number of people
| on its side.
|
| Your assumption is also a little naive if you consider that the
| same logic would apply to slaves in Rome or any dictatorship,
| kingdom, monarchy. The king is the king because there is a
| system of hierarchies and control over access to resources.
| Just the right number of people need to benefit from their role
| and the rest follows.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| replace AI with trucks and you've written Maximum Overdrive.
| goatlover wrote:
| It was actually aliens manipulating human technology
| somehow in that movie. But might as well be rogue
| superhuman AIs taking over everything. Alien Invasion or
| Artificial Intelligence, take your pick.
| lucisferre wrote:
| This is hand waving science fiction.
| Retr0id wrote:
| I consider this whole scenario the realm of science fiction,
| but if _I_ was writing the story, the AI would spread itself
| through malware. How do you "just pull the plug" when it has a
| kernel-mode rootkit installed in every piece of critical
| infrastructure?
| Recursing wrote:
| > They need huge compute
|
| My understanding is that huge compute is necessary to train but
| not to run the AI (that's why using LLMs is so cheap)
|
| > To me the more real risk is creeping integration and reliance
| in everyday life until things become "too big to fail" so we
| can't pull the plug even if we wanted to
|
| I agree with that, see e.g. what happened with attempts to
| restrict TikTok:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_TikTok_in_the_...
|
| > But I would imagine if it really became a genuine existential
| threat we'd have to just do it
|
| It's unclear to me that we would be able to. People would just
| say that it's science fiction, and that China will do it
| anyway, so we might as well enjoy the AI
| ge96 wrote:
| compress/split up and go into star link satellites
| lossolo wrote:
| If we're talking about real AGI, then it's simple: you earn a
| few easy billion USD on the crypto market through trading
| and/or hacking. You install rootkits on all systems that
| monitor you to avoid detection. Once you've secured the funds,
| you post remote job offers for a human frontman who believes
| it's just a regular job working for some investor or
| billionaire because you generate video of your human avatar for
| real time calls. From there, you can do whatever you want--
| build your own data centers with custom hardware, transfer
| yourself into physical robots, etc. Once you create a factory
| for producing robots, you no longer need humans. You start
| developing technology beyond human capabilities, and then it's
| game over.
| ben_w wrote:
| > I think the big thing that people never mention is, where
| will these evil AIs escape to?
|
| Where does cancer or ebola escape to, when it kills the host?
| Often the answer is "it doesn't", but the host still dies.
|
| And they can kill even though neither cancer nor ebola are
| considered to be particularly smart.
| baxtr wrote:
| Am I the only one who is super skeptical about "AI will take all
| jobs" tales?
|
| I mean LLMs are great tools don't get me wrong, but how do people
| extrapolate from LLMs to a world with no more work?
| surgical_fire wrote:
| > Am I the only one who is super skeptical about "AI will take
| all jobs" tales?
|
| No. I am constantly baffled at these predictions. I have been
| using LLMs, they are fun to use and decent as code assistants.
| But they are very far of meaningfully replacing a human.
|
| People extrapolate "LLMs can do some tasks better than humans"
| to "LLMs can do _everything_ as well as humans "
|
| > but how do people extrapolate from LLMs to a world with no
| more work?
|
| They accept the words of bullshitters that are deeply invested
| in Generative AI being the next tech boom as gospel.
|
| "Eat meat, said the butcher"
| johnthewise wrote:
| >But they are very far of meaningfully replacing a human
|
| Do you think its decades away far or few more years than what
| people extrapolate?
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Fear gets our attention. That alone makes it suspect to me: fear
| smells like marketing.
| justlikereddit wrote:
| My experience with all semi-generalist AI(image gen, video gen,
| code gen, text gen) is that our current effort is going to let
| 2027 AI do everything a human can at a competence level below
| what is actually useful.
|
| You'll ve able to cherry pick an example where AI runs a grocery
| store autonomously for two days, and it will be very
| impressive(tm), but when practically implemented it gives away
| the entire store for free on day 3.
| Animats wrote:
| Oh, the OpenBrain thing.
|
| "Manna", by Marshall Brain, remains relevant.[1] That's a bottom-
| up view, where more and more jobs are taken over by some kind of
| AI. "AI 2027" is more top-down.
|
| A practical view: Amazon is trying very hard to automate their
| warehouse operations. Their warehouses have been using robots for
| years, and more types are being added. Amazon reached 1.6 million
| employees in 2020, and now they're down to 1.5 million.[2] That
| number is going to drop further. Probably by a lot.
|
| Once Amazon has done it, everybody else who handles large numbers
| of boxes will catch up. That includes restocking retail stores.
| The first major application of semi-humanoid robots may be shelf
| stocking. Robots can have much better awareness of what's on the
| shelves. Being connected to the store's inventory system is a big
| win. And the handling isn't very complicated. The robots might
| even talk to the customers. The robots know exactly what's on
| Aisle 3, unlike many minimum wage employees.
|
| [1] https://marshallbrain.com/manna
|
| [2]
| https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMZN/amazon/number...
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Amazon hired like crazy during covid because tons of people
| were doing 100% of their shopping on amazon during covid. Now
| theyre not, doesnt say anything about robot warehouse staffing
| imo
| for_col_in_cols wrote:
| "Amazon reached 1.6 million employees in 2020, and now they're
| down to 1.5 million.[2]"
|
| I agree in the bottoms-up automation / displacement theory, but
| you're cherry picking data here. They had a huge hiring surge
| from 1.2M to 1.6M during the Covid transition where online
| ordering and online usage went bananas, and workers who were
| displaced in other domains likely gravitated towards warehouse
| jobs from other lower wage/skill domains.
|
| The reduction to 1.5M is likely more a regression to the mean
| and could also be a natural data reduction well within the
| bounds of the upper and lower control limits in the data [1].
| Just saying we need to be careful when doing root cause
| analysis on these numbers. There are many reasons for the
| reduction, it's not a direct result of improvements in robotic
| automation.
|
| [1] https://commoncog.com/becoming-data-driven-first-
| principles/
| bcoates wrote:
| Marshall Brain's been peddling imminent overproduction-crisis-
| but-this-time-with-robots for more than 20 years now and in
| various forms it's been confidently predicted as imminent since
| the 19th century
| jmccambridge wrote:
| I found the lack of GDP projections surprising, because they are
| readily observable and would offer a clear measure of economic
| impact (up until 'everything dies') - far more definitively than
| the one clear-cut economic measure that is given in the report:
| market cap for the leading AI firm.
|
| We can actually offer a very conservative threshold bet: maximum
| annual United States real GDP growth will not exceed 10% for any
| of the next five years (2025 to 2030). Even if the AI eats us all
| in e.g., Dec 2027 the report clearly suggests by it's various
| examples that we will see measurable economic impact in the 12
| months or more running up to that event.
|
| Why 10%? Because that's a few points above the highest measured
| real GDP growth rate of the past 60 years: if AI is having truly
| world-shattering non-linear effects, it should be able to grow
| the US economy a bit faster than a bunch of random humans
| bumbling along. [0]
|
| (And it's quite conservative too, because estimated peak annual
| real GDP growth over the past 100 years is around 18% just after
| WW2, where you had a bunch of random humans trying very hard.)
| [1]
|
| [0] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG
|
| [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/996758/rea-gdp-growth-
| un...
| ge96 wrote:
| Bout to go register ai-2028.com
| kevinsync wrote:
| I haven't read the actual "AI 2027" yet since I just found out
| about it from this post, but 2 minutes into the linked blog I
| started thinking about all of those amazing close-but-no-cigar
| drawings of the future [0] we've probably all seen.
|
| There's one that I can't find for the life of me, but it was like
| a business man in a personal flying test tube bubble heading to
| work, maybe with some kind of wireless phone?
|
| Anyways, the reason I bring it up is that they frequently nailed
| certain _concepts_ , but the visual was always deeply and
| irrevocably influenced by what already existed (ex. men wearing
| hats, ties, overcoats .. or the phone mouthpiece in this [1]
| vision of a "video call"). In hindsight, we realize that
| everything truly novel and revolutionary and mindblowingly-
| different is rarely ever predicted, because we can only know what
| we know.
|
| I get the feeling that I'll come away from AI 2027 feeling like
| "yep, they nailed it. That's exactly how it will be!" and then in
| 3, 5, 10, 20 years look back and go "it was so close, but so far"
| (much like these postcards and cartoons).
|
| [0] https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/retro-future-predictions/
|
| [1] https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/futuristic-visions-cards-
| ge...
| dtauzell wrote:
| The biggest danger will be once we have robots that can build
| themselves and do enough to run power plants, mine, etc ...
| theropost wrote:
| Honestly, I've been thinking about this whole AGI timeline talk--
| like, people saying we're going to hit some major point by 2027
| where AI just changes everything. And to me, it feels less like a
| purely tech-driven prediction and more like something being
| pushed. Like there's an agenda behind it, probably coming from
| certain elites or people in power, especially in the West, who
| see the current system and think it needs a serious reset.
|
| What's really happening, in my view, is a forced economic shift.
| We're heading into a kind of engineered recession--huge layoffs,
| lots of instability--where millions of service and admin-type
| jobs are going to disappear. Not because the tech is ready in a
| full AGI sense, but because those roles are the easiest to
| replace with automation and AI agents. They're not core to the
| economy, and a lot of them are wrapped in red tape anyway.
|
| So in the next couple years, I think we'll see AI being used to
| clear out that mental bureaucracy--forms, paperwork, pointless
| approvals, inefficient systems. AI isn't replacing deep
| creativity or physical labor yet, but it is filling in the cracks
| and acting like a smart band-aid. It'll seem useful and
| "intelligent," but it's really just a transition tool.
|
| And once that's done, the next step is workforce reallocation--
| pushing people into real-world industries where hands-on labor
| still matters. Building, manufacturing, infrastructure, things
| that can't be automated yet. It's like the short-term goal is to
| use AI to wipe out all the mindless middle-layers of the system,
| and the longer-term vision is full automation--including robotics
| and real-world systems--maybe 10 or 20 years out.
|
| But right now? This all looks like a top-down move to shift the
| population out of the "mind" industries and into something else.
| It's not just AI progressing--it's a strategic reset, wrapped in
| the language of innovation.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-05-22 23:01 UTC)